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  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]
Date:	Thu, 7 Aug 2014 11:16:11 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <>
To:	Goffredo Baroncelli <>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
	LKML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Export the temperatures via hwmon

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 07:50:00PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 08/07/2014 09:36 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 08/06/2014 11:52 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >> Hi Guenter,
> >>
> >> On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 23:20:32 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> Patch 4/5 is "Return the fan speed via sysfs: /sys/devices/temperature/fan_level".
> >>>
> >>> So you are saying that returning the fan speed with a non-hwmon attribute works,
> >>> but returning it with a hwmon attribute doesn't ? Not really sure if I understand
> >>> your logic. Either fan_level doesn't return the fan speed (or an abstraction of it),
> >>> or something in your line of argument is inconsistent.
> >>
> >> fan_level is a fan speed _control_ value, like pwm1. It is not a fan
> >> speed monitoring value.
> >>
> > Ah, ok. The patch description doesn't seem to match, though.
> > And why not export it as pwm1, if that is what it is ?
> > 
> > Guenter
> > 
> > 
> the exported fan_level value is a coefficient near proportional to the speed [*];
> so it is not the speed nor the pwm.
> I tried to read the pwm/speed value, but when I did it, every 5/6 seconds the
> fan seemed to stop for 1s, then the speed raised.... So I stopped the test.
> These patches (the first two) solved a real issue: with the last kernels this
> driver doesn't work at all, and the fan go to maximum speed (very loud !)
> The other three are an improvement.
> When (if) these patches will be accepted I want to write another solution,
> but definitely not now. And even if it would work for me, it is very likely 
> that will  be accepted because nobody is able to test it on all hardware.
Might have been easier to just drop all this non-standard code and instantiate
the adm1030 using the adm1031 driver instead.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists