From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:37:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Missing Code v4.5-rc1 [Patch v3 25/25] IT8628E Message-Id: <56D33061.9010704@roeck-us.net> List-Id: References: <56D1B0EF.9050603@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <56D1B0EF.9050603@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org On 02/28/2016 08:59 AM, Sardaukai wrote: > Small Update >> ... >>> In addition i searched drivers/hwmon/it87.c in order to find the patche= d code from kernel 4.5-rc5. >>> Unfortunately i found no code changes from Patch v3 (i tested about 5 p= atches). >>> Should it not be patched within 4.5-rc1 or do i miss here something? >>> >> Does it say anywhere that the patches were reviewed and/or accepted >> for upstream integration ? >> >> Problem is that there is hardly anyone willing to review hwmon kernel >> patches nowadays, meaning they have to go in unreviewed or not at all. >> Given the complexity and scope of the series, I don't want to just push >> the patches into the upstream kernel without review. With that in mind, >> it may take a while for the code to be upstream. >> > I see. You wrote that it should go up with rc-1, so i thought it is alrea= dy there, my mistake. >>> Second question >>> Is it possible to take your code from github to patch/replace it in ano= ther kernel, like 4.3 / 4.4 ? >>> >> Yes, that should be possible. I have been running it on earlier kernels >> myself. > > With GitHub module code for it87 chip's and a boot parameter "acpi_enforc= e_resources=3Dlax" > i was able to load it. > > it8628-isa-0a40 > Adapter: ISA adapter > in0: +0.43 V (min =3D +0.00 V, max =3D +3.06 V) <--- seem= s to be VCore, tested with cpuBurn > in1: +2.04 V (min =3D +0.00 V, max =3D +3.06 V) > in2: +2.00 V (min =3D +0.00 V, max =3D +3.06 V) > in3: +2.04 V (min =3D +0.00 V, max =3D +3.06 V) > in4: +0.01 V (min =3D +0.00 V, max =3D +3.06 V) > in5: +1.07 V (min =3D +0.00 V, max =3D +3.06 V) > in6: +1.20 V (min =3D +0.00 V, max =3D +3.06 V) <--- coul= d be RAM Voltage > 3VSB: +3.36 V (min =3D +0.00 V, max =3D +6.12 V) > Vbat: +3.17 V <--- Battery Voltage from EFI, really?! > fan1: 0 RPM (min =3D 0 RPM) <--- CPU_FAN not connected > fan2: 2280 RPM (min =3D 0 RPM) <--- CPU_OPT (my H80i pump) > fan3: 1078 RPM (min =3D 0 RPM) <--- SYS_FAN3 or 2 (radiator fa= n) > fan4: 0 RPM (min =3D 0 RPM) <--- SYS_FAN1 not connected > fan5: 1819 RPM (min =3D 0 RPM) <--- SYS_FAN2 or 3 (radiator fa= n #2) > temp1: +43.0=B0C (low =3D +127.0=B0C, high =3D +127.0=B0C) sens= or =3D thermistor > temp2: -8.0=B0C (low =3D +127.0=B0C, high =3D +127.0=B0C) sens= or =3D thermistor > temp3: +22.0=B0C (low =3D +127.0=B0C, high =3D +127.0=B0C) sens= or =3D Intel PECI > intrusion0: OK <--- Nice, i have to check where and how to= use that > If it is connected. On most motherboards it isn't. > Kernel 4.3.5 with Debian Testing (Stretch) > sensors version 3.4.0 with libsensors version 3.4.0 > fancontrol 3.4.0-2 > > I'll try to get that names step by step. Further i tried fancontrol, i go= t funny stuff with fan5. > It seems to be that PWM values from fan5 are inverted. > > Following fancontrol setting stops all fans. > > # Configuration file generated by pwmconfig, changes will be lost > INTERVAL=3D10 > DEVPATH=3Dhwmon2=3Ddevices/platform/it87.2624 > DEVNAME=3Dhwmon2=3Dit8628 > FCTEMPS=3Dhwmon2/pwm5=3Dhwmon2/temp3_input hwmon2/pwm3=3Dhwmon2/temp3_inp= ut > FCFANS=3Dhwmon2/pwm5=3Dhwmon2/fan5_input hwmon2/pwm3=3Dhwmon2/fan3_input > MINTEMP=3Dhwmon2/pwm5=3D20 hwmon2/pwm3=3D20 > MAXTEMP=3Dhwmon2/pwm5=3D60 hwmon2/pwm3=3D60 > MINSTOP=3Dhwmon2/pwm3=3D1 hwmon2/pwm5=3D254 > MINSTART=3Dhwmon2/pwm3=3D1 hwmon2/pwm5=3D255 > MINPWM=3Dhwmon2/pwm3=3D0 hwmon2/pwm5=3D254 > MAXPWM=3Dhwmon2/pwm3=3D2 hwmon2/pwm5=3D255 > > I tried some different EFI settings with system fans (Silent, Normal, PWM= per degree) without > any changes. Fan3 works out of the box. I will check all other fans soon. > Any idea how to fix that? > Sorry, no. I prefer to stick with automatic fan control; I consider it to be less risk= y, since it keeps working even if the user space code fails. the Super-IO chip= s usually to a pretty good job. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors