From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert Schueller Subject: Thermal trip_points, raise them? Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:26:29 -0800 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20040120002629.A21624@carrot.whitman.edu> Reply-To: Albert Schueller Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 20 00:23:44 PST 2004 Hi, After a brief search of the archives on this subject, I have the following questions: (I'm running ACPI that's in the stock 2.6.1 kernel, this is a debian woody (mostly stable) machine, with, of course, the 2.6.1 kernel. )=20 - Ever since I started running acpi on my Dell SmartStep 200N I've been getting thermal shutdowns. I suppose having them is better than not having them, but even in a well-ventilated, cool room, the machine will shutdown if I compile a kernel. This is a 2GHz P4 (mobile). It's clean inside, no dust. According to the specs at Intel the chip is safe upto 100=B0C (though maybe not the stuff around it, I don't know). In =20 /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THR1/trip_points =3D 72 C /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THR2/trip_points =3D 78 C well shy of the 100=B0C on the Intel spec. I was planning to hack the acpi source and raise the trip points to something like 80 and 86, but I can't find where they're being set. This makes me think that they're being obtained from the BIOS somehow. Is it ok to just: cat "80 C" > /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THR1/trip_points cat "86 C" > /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THR2/trip_points I'll take responsibility for any thermal damage, I'm just wondering if this will raise the trip_points for me. Alternatively, would removing the thermal module before a big job, like a kernel compile, and then reinserting it be ok? Or, would it break the ACPI that's currently running? (again I take responsibility for thermal damage). - Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between the ACPI code in the stock 2.6.1 kernel and, say, the 2.6.1 patch provided on the acpi.sf.net page? (I know, I know, look at the diffs.) Are there different development groups for ACPI? One that's getting their stuff into the current kernels, and this group that provides a patch replacement? Sorry if these are FAQ's. A --=20 Albert Schueller Department of Mathematic= s Office Phone: 509-527-5140 Whitman College Public Key: http://carrot.whitman.edu/gpg.key Walla Walla, WA USA 9936= 2 ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn