On 2016-02-01 1:07, Roy Marples wrote:
On 30/01/2016 19:39, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
In general, I personally don't think it ever makes sense to shutdown
by default when the temperature is exceeded, since most of these
sensors aren't really all that reliable (especially if you're getting
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Julian Coleman wrote:
Hi,
I've been looking at some of the sensors using the envsys framework, and
adding the ability to get and set the hardware (sensor chip) limits. Two
aspects of envsys, related to initial values, seem strange to me:
1) we call setlimits immediately
Hi,
I've been looking at some of the sensors using the envsys framework, and
adding the ability to get and set the hardware (sensor chip) limits. Two
aspects of envsys, related to initial values, seem strange to me:
1) we call setlimits immediately after getlimits
2) we call getlimits
>>> In general, I personally don't think it ever makes sense to
>>> shutdown by default when the temperature is exceeded, since most of
>>> these sensors aren't really all that reliable [...]
>> I disagree with this.
>> On my IBM ThinkPad z60m, the fan is so knackered it [...] If it
>> gets
Hi,
> The above is not necessarily correct -- many of the chips supported by
> the lm(4) driver, on NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly BSD, certainly do,
> in fact, implement a whole bunch of fan-controlling features; see
> http://sensors.cnst.su/fanctl/ for a sample BSD implementation of the
> fan
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Taylor R Campbell
wrote:
>Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:18:44 +0900
>From: Ryota Ozaki
>
>On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:58
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Taylor R Campbell
wrote:
>Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:41:03 +0900
>From: Ryota Ozaki
>
>While I agree on providing a separate API and letting all drivers use
>it finally, I don't agree on