on 02/08/2011 00:06 Jung-uk Kim said the following: > On Monday 01 August 2011 04:10 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 01/08/2011 22:48 Jung-uk Kim said the following: >>> I have mixed feeling about this because I own a system with such >>> CPU/motherboard combo, too. I also believe it works well but >>> errata is errata. If vendor says we shouldn't use it, then we >>> shouldn't. In fact, I am just following Linux as an example here >>> but I have no problem with turning this into a warning message, >>> either. >> >> Let's cut a deal :-) >> If we start using amdtemp for fan control, emergency system >> shutdown or similar, then we follow the strict path. Until then, >> while we use amdtemp to amuse users with numbers, let's just print >> a warning :-) > > Okay, here is the new patch (not tested on the affected system yet): > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/amdtemp2.diff
Tested the patch - looks good! One comment though: it seems that sensor_offset defaults to zero now. Would it be a good idea to default it to what it previously used to be? On my system the hardware reports the offset correctly (as verified by using independent hardware monitoring logic in Super I/O), so defaulting it to zero is kind of a regression. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
