From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/power turbostat: Drop temperature checks Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 04:12:51 -0700 Message-ID: <53622C33.9090100@roeck-us.net> References: <20140501114019.1a63728e@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:60890 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755224AbaEALMz (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2014 07:12:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140501114019.1a63728e@endymion.delvare> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Delvare , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Cc: Len Brown , Josh Triplett On 05/01/2014 02:40 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > The Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manual says > that TjMax is stored in bits 23:16 of MSR_TEMPERATURE TARGET (0x1a2). > That's 8 bits, not 7, so it must be masked with 0xFF rather than 0x7F. > > The manual has no mention of which values should be considered valid, > which kind of implies that they all are. Arbitrarily discarding values > outside a specific range is wrong. The upper range check had to be > fixed recently (commit 144b44b1) and the lower range check is just as > wrong. See bug #75071: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75071 > > There are many Xeon processor series with TjMax of 70, 71 or 80 > degrees Celsius, way below the arbitrary 85 degrees Celsius limit. > There may be other (past or future) models with even lower limits. > > So drop this arbitrary check. The only value that would be clearly > invalid is 0. Everything else should be accepted. > > After these changes, turbostat is aligned with what the coretemp > driver does. > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare > Cc: Guenter Roeck > Cc: Len Brown > Cc: Josh Triplett Acked-by: Guenter Roeck