From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:04:36 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Albrecht Dreß Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: CPU Temperature Patch Message-ID: <20000920110436.C15401@opus.bloom.county> References: <10009201242.AA11420@mgu.bath.ac.uk> <11420.10009201242@mgu.bath.ac.uk> <39C8D1CE.1847B996@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <39C8D1CE.1847B996@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>; from ad@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de on Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 05:03:42PM +0200 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 05:03:42PM +0200, Albrecht Dreß wrote: > > "D.J. Osguthorpe" wrote: > > Here are two patches that appear to fix the cpu_temp function in setup.c. > > They have been applied to a number of Ben Herrenschmidt kernels on a 500 MHz > > Pismo powerbook and print reasonable values when you cat /proc/cpuinfo. > > The patch seems to work on my Lombard/333, too... Really great! > > > + /* this set for 500 MHz Pismo - how do we get access to clock?? */ > > There is, in the same file, around line 319 code to read the clock speed from > the device tree. However, is it really necessary to include the clock speed at > this point? What is the drawback if we just assume 500 MHz (or even the max > value) for every G3 based machine? Why assume when we can do it properly? Besides, a friend of mine oc'ed his B&W to 550, so it's possible to have >500Mhz :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/