On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 13:41 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > > > In fact, can you change that define around and see if it makes it behave > > more like therm_pm72 overall ? IE That's the only -known- difference > > between the old and new driver (+/- a bug / typo / etc..) > > Yes, that's make the difference for the cpu fan control. Note that > MacOS (at least 10.3, which is the only one I have) drives the fans the > same way as the old driver.
Ok, I'll switch that back then. It seemed more sensible to read the actual fan values rather than the programmed ones (in fact I wonder if I can just skip the read alltogether then and use a cached value but that means I won't be able to detect failed fans...), but if you say it behaves better, let's keep it the way it was. As for the tickle, I'm not sure yet how to proceed. I'll look into it, try various things. We can maybe just remove the tickle but that means that a completely idle machine might start ramping up as the FCU times out. Finally, setting the slot fan from sysfs should be doable reasonably easily. Stay tuned and thanks a lot for testing ! :-) Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
