From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jordan Crouse Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:27:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/2] k8temp warn about errata Message-Id: <49178E19.9050301@cosmicpenguin.net> List-Id: References: <48E3F505.40401@assembler.cz> In-Reply-To: <48E3F505.40401@assembler.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Rudolf, > > On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:56:54 +0100, Rudolf Marek wrote: >> Thanks for the review. I'm attaching fixed version. >> >> Following patch adds warning about wrong CPU temperature readouts on all fam f >> rev f revision of CPUs. >> >> Used switch statement, more code changes follows. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek > > I've applied it, thanks. Note that I added a "break" at the end of the > case 0xf, otherwise it's an invitation to get things wrong in the next > patch... > >>> If all revision F and later CPUs are affected by the errata and the >>> temperature reported is never correct, we should simply blacklist these >>> CPUs. I guess this isn't the case, otherwise you'd have proposed that >>> we do that long ago. >> Yes. >> >>> If most but not all of these CPUs are affected, then it would make >>> sense to disable them by default but give the user a chance to still >>> enable them (using a module parameter.) >> I tried hard to get this info from AMD. All versions are affected, but some may >> be fixed/not tested. >> >>> If there are more revision F and later CPUs with working thermal >>> diodes, and working ones can be told from non-working ones based on the >>> exact revision, we could implement blacklisting and/or whitelisting >>> base on the revision. >> The errata is for all revs. > > For what it's worth, Jordan Crouse seems to think that blacklisting on > a per-revision basis may still work. I think it can. A much larger sample would probably need to be taken to be completely sure - but I hope that we'll find that the problem is deterministic enough for a blacklist. I think we would agree that a blacklist would be the more user friendly solution. Jordan _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors