On Sunday 21 August 2011 06:13 am, Andriy Gapon wrote: > 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.
If we want to preserve the previous default, we have to reintroduce DiodeOffset or to define more quirks. :-/ Jung-uk Kim _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
