linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Enable coretemp driver on Intel Atom

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

Message-Id: <20090618121326.42ab9c2f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:13:26 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michael Riepe <michael.riepe@...glemail.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rudolf Marek <r.marek@...embler.cz>,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable coretemp driver on Intel Atom

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:46:18 +0200
Michael Riepe <michael.riepe@...glemail.com> wrote:

> This small patch enables the coretemp driver on an Intel Atom. I'm not
> sure if the readings are correct, however - on my 330, the driver
> reports values between 27 and 41 __C (with core1 being about 8__C hotter
> than core0, given the same load). Maybe the maximum temperature of 100
> __C is wrong for Atom CPUs.
> 
> -- 
> Michael "Tired" Riepe <michael.riepe@...glemail.com>
> X-Tired: Each morning I get up I die a little
> 
> 
> [linux-2.6.29.1-coretemp-atom.diff  text/plain (916B)]
> Signed-off-by: Michael Riepe <michael.riepe@...glemail.com>
> 
> Index: drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /var/cvs/sys/kernel/linux-2.6/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.1.1.5
> diff -u -r1.1.1.5 coretemp.c
> --- drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c	11 Jan 2009 21:29:23 -0000	1.1.1.5
> +++ drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c	16 Apr 2009 23:02:40 -0000
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	if (ismobile) {
> +	if (ismobile || c->x86_model == 0x1c) {
>  
>  		err = rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(id, 0xee, &eax, &edx);
>  		if (err) {
> @@ -417,7 +417,7 @@
>  		if ((c->cpuid_level < 0) || (c->x86 != 0x6) ||
>  		    !((c->x86_model == 0xe) || (c->x86_model == 0xf) ||
>  			(c->x86_model == 0x16) || (c->x86_model == 0x17) ||
> -			(c->x86_model == 0x1A))) {
> +			(c->x86_model == 0x1A) || (c->x86_model == 0x1c))) {
>  
>  			/* supported CPU not found, but report the unknown
>  			   family 6 CPU */
> 

I'm not 100% sure what to do about this patch.  I'm inclined to merge
it, even though you think it might be giving the wrong numbers,
because then someone might fix it.

otoh, if giving the wrong numbers leads to people's machines needlessly
shutting down or something like that, then that's not so good.

Opinions are sought?
--
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/