Re: [lm-sensors] Ticket #2382

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 08:41:01PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
[ ... ]
> > with the same model/mask. Based on that we could declare a "tjmin" and
> > report that if it is 1) defined and 2) the valid bit is 0. A somewhat "safe"
> > temperature to report for the D5xx (model 0x1c/mask 10), based on Mike's
> > numbers, would then be 36 degrees C (100 - 64).
> 
> Not sure where you drew the "36" from. From Mike's table it seems the
> valid flag wears off when the reported temperature would be < 6°C. This
> correlates with my findings in the ticket where the valid flag would be
> 0 for 1°C and 4°C.
> 
Now I remember what I was thinking. In Mike's table, the real temperature at
which the sensor last reported 'valid' (according to the thermal diode)
was at 44 degrees C, or 56 degrees below TjMax. Add the reported temperature
of 6 degrees C to that number and you get 62. Round up to 64 below TjMax,
or 36 degrees C.

Not that this calculation really makes any sense ;-), but with Mike's 'real'
numbers from the thermal diode it sounds at least somewhat reasonable.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors