linux-kernel - Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (coretemp) Fix TjMax for Atom N450/D410/D510 CPUs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:27:32 +0800
From:	Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc:	Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>,
	Yuhong Bao <yuhongbao_386@...mail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, huaxu.wan@...el.com,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (coretemp) Fix TjMax for Atom
	N450/D410/D510 CPUs

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:14:51AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:58:21 +0800, Yong Wang wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 09:05:36PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > That's where I am confused. The patch checks for the presence of the
> > > Intel NM10, which, reading its description looks much like a south
> > > bridge and not a memory controller (north bridge). So I think the patch
> > > is wrong (or at least incomplete).
> > 
> > Sorry, I made a mistake in the patch description. The new Atom CPU is
> > coupled with integrated gfx and memory controller in one package. NM10
> > chipset is another chip. This patch does check the presence of the
> > integrated memory controller, i.e. 00:00.0 Host bridge device, which
> > will always be present no matter whether NM10 chipset is used or not.
> 
> OK. Then indeed the patch description was rather bad. Even the comments
> in the code are misleading, they mention the NM10 when they don't
> really have to.
> 
> But at least if the code itself is OK... that's not that bad.
> 
> > > Anyway, how difficult would it be to set TjMax based on the CPUID? I
> > > presume that the Intel Atom 400 and 500 series have their own CPUID
> > > value, haven't they? This would seem even easier that checking for a
> > > PCI device.
> > 
> > CPUID value (family and model number) remains the same for all Atom CPUs
> > thus far. That is why we check the new Atom CPU this way.
> 
> What about the stepping value? Don't these CPU models have their own?
> 

The stepping value is not architectually defined. Therefore, it is not
the recommended way to detect CPU make and models.

Thanks
-Yong

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/