From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:48:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200908261848.29897.elendil@planet.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090826162342.GA15868@srcf.ucam.org>
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 06:17:23PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Values below 40000 milli-celsius (limit is somewhat arbitrary)
> > don't make sense and can cause the system to go into a thermal
> > heart attack: the actual temperature will always be lower and
> > thus the system will be throttled down to its lowest setting.
>
> Not keen on this - it's a pretty arbitrary cutoff, and there are some
> cases where someone might want this value. Policy belongs in userspace,
> and all that.
What cases do you see? Testing? Or systems that might have to operate at
such a low temperature? I deliberately chose a value that's at a level
that's easy to reach.
I agree it is arbitrary, but it will prevent major confusion when someone
like me echo's 95 directly in sysfs.
Would 1000 (1 °C) perhaps be more acceptable as a limit? I doubt there are
valid use-cases for below 0 temps :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:48:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200908261848.29897.elendil@planet.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090826162342.GA15868@srcf.ucam.org>
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 06:17:23PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Values below 40000 milli-celsius (limit is somewhat arbitrary)
> > don't make sense and can cause the system to go into a thermal
> > heart attack: the actual temperature will always be lower and
> > thus the system will be throttled down to its lowest setting.
>
> Not keen on this - it's a pretty arbitrary cutoff, and there are some
> cases where someone might want this value. Policy belongs in userspace,
> and all that.
What cases do you see? Testing? Or systems that might have to operate at
such a low temperature? I deliberately chose a value that's at a level
that's easy to reach.
I agree it is arbitrary, but it will prevent major confusion when someone
like me echo's 95 directly in sysfs.
Would 1000 (1 °C) perhaps be more acceptable as a limit? I doubt there are
valid use-cases for below 0 temps :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-26 16:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-26 16:17 [PATCH 0/6] thermal: improvements re. forced passive cooling Frans Pop
2009-08-26 16:17 ` [PATCH 1/6] thermal: sysfs-api.txt - reformat for improved readability Frans Pop
2009-08-26 16:17 ` [PATCH 2/6] thermal: sysfs-api.txt - document passive attribute for thermal zones Frans Pop
2009-08-31 8:18 ` Zhang Rui
2009-08-31 11:19 ` Frans Pop
2009-09-01 0:44 ` Zhang Rui
2009-09-02 20:02 ` Pavel Machek
2009-09-03 14:34 ` Frans Pop
2009-08-26 16:17 ` [PATCH 3/6] acpi: thermal: display forced passive trip points in proc Frans Pop
2009-08-31 8:20 ` Zhang Rui
2009-08-26 16:17 ` [PATCH 4/6] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute Frans Pop
2009-08-26 16:23 ` Matthew Garrett
2009-08-26 16:48 ` Frans Pop [this message]
2009-08-26 16:48 ` Frans Pop
2009-08-31 8:33 ` Zhang Rui
2009-08-31 8:33 ` Zhang Rui
2009-08-31 10:30 ` Frans Pop
2009-08-31 10:30 ` Frans Pop
2009-09-03 6:10 ` Zhang Rui
2009-09-03 6:10 ` Zhang Rui
2009-09-03 14:33 ` [PATCH 4/6,v2] " Frans Pop
2009-09-03 14:33 ` Frans Pop
2009-08-26 16:17 ` [PATCH 5/6] thermal: Only set passive_delay for forced passive cooling Frans Pop
2009-08-26 16:25 ` Matthew Garrett
2009-09-10 16:07 ` Frans Pop
2009-09-10 16:15 ` Matthew Garrett
2009-08-26 16:17 ` [PATCH 6/6] thermal: disable polling if passive_delay and polling_delay are both unset Frans Pop
2009-08-26 16:25 ` Matthew Garrett
2009-09-11 6:08 ` [PATCH 0/6] thermal: improvements re. forced passive cooling Frans Pop
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-10-26 7:38 [PATCH 0/6] [resend] " Frans Pop
2009-10-26 7:39 ` [PATCH 4/6] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute Frans Pop
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200908261848.29897.elendil@planet.nl \
--to=elendil@planet.nl \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.