Fenghua,

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:51:20 -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 09:27:19AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > I might spend some time rewriting the coretemp driver as described above,
> > unless someone else picks it up, and unless there is opposition. 
> > Obviously, that won't include the package sensor since there is now
> > a separate driver for it.
>
> I agree with this method too. On a multiple socket system, the current coretemp
> output will cause confusion since it only outputs core# without package#.

Good point.

quoted text
> If it's ok for you, I can rewrite this part to have hwmon device per CPU with
> both core and package thermal info and send out RFC patch soon.

Yes, please! If you have time to work on this, it would be very great.
I am really curious to see how the driver would look like if we go with
this approach. I can test the code, too (although I understand you
won't have any difficulties getting your hands on recent Intel
systems ;)

Also see my reply in the other thread about the handling of removed
siblings. I suspect it will be very easy to add to the new design.

Side question: is it safe to assume a maximum of 2 siblings per core on
Intel x86 CPUs?

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/