[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912110122570.24891@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:25:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>
Cc: J.A. Magallón <jamagallon@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Useless thermal acpi driver ?
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Robert Hancock wrote:
> On 12/09/2009 04:26 PM, J.A. Magallón wrote:
> > Hi all...
> >
> > I have a couple boxes where the thermal acpi driver gives this:
> >
> > bran:~> sensors
> > acpitz-virtual-0
> > Adapter: Virtual device
> > temp1: +26.8°C (crit = +100.0°C)
> >
> > bran:~> acpi -t
> > No support for device type: battery
> > Thermal 1: ok, 27.0 degrees C
> >
> > It stays _always_ the same, there is no difference if I run some number
> > crunchin, or even if one of them is overclocked from 2.8 to 3.0 GHz.
>
> There are systems where an ACPI thermal zone exists but isn't really hooked up
> to anything and just reports some dummy temperature value. My old system
> reported 40 degrees C no matter what. (I think it's something like the thermal
> zone support is part of the standard ACPI DSDT template the mobo maker got
> from the BIOS developer and they effectively disabled it by putting in the
> dummy temperature.)
send the output from acpidump, and a quick look will tell us
if your ACPI suport is dummy, or accesses real registers.
Also, show the output from
grep . /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/*/*
cheers,
-Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> > They are 1U supermicro boxes, ventilation is good, but I don't trust this
> > measures...
> > It looks like the system is using some kind of 'generic' acpi TZ driver,
> > but as I'm used to good-ol' sensors modules, I don't know where to look.
> >
> > Previously I used the w83627hf module from sensors.
>
> I'm assuming the kernel is preventing that module from loading since the ACPI
> DSDT has operation regions that refer to the device registers. There's no
> guarantee that this means the BIOS actually accesses the device, or if it
> does, that there's a way to get it to report what it sees other than to
> itself. If the BIOS doesn't actually access the device then you can use the
> acpi_enforce_resources=lax to allow it. The problem is this might be totally
> unsafe and the kernel has no way to tell if it is or isn't.
> --
> 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/
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists