* Re: [lm-sensors] Intel ICH8/QST Support
2010-09-15 1:35 [lm-sensors] Intel ICH8/QST Support Matthew Manuel
@ 2010-09-15 1:49 ` Guenter Roeck
2010-09-24 4:09 ` Maxim Levitsky
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2010-09-15 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:35:19PM -0400, Matthew Manuel wrote:
> Should it be possible to add support for these now that the SDK was released?
>
> http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/Intel_Quiet_System_Technology_Software_Development_Kit/
>
The programmer's reference manual points to http://www.openamt.org for a linux driver.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [lm-sensors] Intel ICH8/QST Support
2010-09-15 1:35 [lm-sensors] Intel ICH8/QST Support Matthew Manuel
2010-09-15 1:49 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2010-09-24 4:09 ` Maxim Levitsky
2010-09-24 4:45 ` Guenter Roeck
2010-09-24 13:10 ` Maxim Levitsky
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Maxim Levitsky @ 2010-09-24 4:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 18:49 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:35:19PM -0400, Matthew Manuel wrote:
> > Should it be possible to add support for these now that the SDK was released?
> >
> > http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/Intel_Quiet_System_Technology_Software_Development_Kit/
> >
> The programmer's reference manual points to http://www.openamt.org for a linux driver.
The driver just does a transport of commands from/to the firmware.
It pity though it was never merged upstream.
The so long waited QST SDK however specifies what to send, and it looks
good.
The PDF included nice detailed description of QST 2.0, while SDK sources
(which are more or less useless other that a good source of
documentation, contain headers that declare commands for QST 1.0, so it
really all covered. More that that, I see that it even included
description on how to manually control the fans if BIOS didn't lock that
up, and passthrough mode to talk to sensors (again if bios didn't lock
that).
Cool stuff it seems.
Too bad it took so many years, my desktop is quite old now.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] Intel ICH8/QST Support
2010-09-15 1:35 [lm-sensors] Intel ICH8/QST Support Matthew Manuel
2010-09-15 1:49 ` Guenter Roeck
2010-09-24 4:09 ` Maxim Levitsky
@ 2010-09-24 4:45 ` Guenter Roeck
2010-09-24 13:10 ` Maxim Levitsky
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2010-09-24 4:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:09:52AM -0400, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 18:49 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:35:19PM -0400, Matthew Manuel wrote:
> > > Should it be possible to add support for these now that the SDK was released?
> > >
> > > http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/Intel_Quiet_System_Technology_Software_Development_Kit/
> > >
> > The programmer's reference manual points to http://www.openamt.org for a linux driver.
>
> The driver just does a transport of commands from/to the firmware.
> It pity though it was never merged upstream.
>
> The so long waited QST SDK however specifies what to send, and it looks
> good.
> The PDF included nice detailed description of QST 2.0, while SDK sources
> (which are more or less useless other that a good source of
> documentation, contain headers that declare commands for QST 1.0, so it
> really all covered. More that that, I see that it even included
> description on how to manually control the fans if BIOS didn't lock that
> up, and passthrough mode to talk to sensors (again if bios didn't lock
> that).
>
> Cool stuff it seems.
> Too bad it took so many years, my desktop is quite old now.
>
Usually Intel is pretty good nowadays in pushing code into the kernel.
They would be the natural entity to do it ...
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] Intel ICH8/QST Support
2010-09-15 1:35 [lm-sensors] Intel ICH8/QST Support Matthew Manuel
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-24 4:45 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2010-09-24 13:10 ` Maxim Levitsky
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Maxim Levitsky @ 2010-09-24 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:45 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:09:52AM -0400, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 18:49 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:35:19PM -0400, Matthew Manuel wrote:
> > > > Should it be possible to add support for these now that the SDK was released?
> > > >
> > > > http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/Intel_Quiet_System_Technology_Software_Development_Kit/
> > > >
> > > The programmer's reference manual points to http://www.openamt.org for a linux driver.
> >
> > The driver just does a transport of commands from/to the firmware.
> > It pity though it was never merged upstream.
> >
> > The so long waited QST SDK however specifies what to send, and it looks
> > good.
> > The PDF included nice detailed description of QST 2.0, while SDK sources
> > (which are more or less useless other that a good source of
> > documentation, contain headers that declare commands for QST 1.0, so it
> > really all covered. More that that, I see that it even included
> > description on how to manually control the fans if BIOS didn't lock that
> > up, and passthrough mode to talk to sensors (again if bios didn't lock
> > that).
> >
> > Cool stuff it seems.
> > Too bad it took so many years, my desktop is quite old now.
> >
> Usually Intel is pretty good nowadays in pushing code into the kernel.
> They would be the natural entity to do it ...
They tried a bit to push heci driver, it even was in staging for a
while, but then (correct if I am wrong) no more effort was done.
Regardless of that we will need a QST driver on top of heci, and
preferably in the kernel.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread