Ed, For me, the USB booting was the win-factor to get a 6501. Ironically I've only used it once, as network booting seems more convenient.
Now to the point - you seem to be right: From 'http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/machdep.c?rev=1.533;content-type=text%2Fplain': #if !defined(SMALL_KERNEL) /* * Temperature read on the CPU is relative to the maximum * temperature supported by the CPU, Tj(Max). * Poorly documented, refer to: * http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/isn/Community/ * en-US/forums/thread/30228638.aspx * Basically, depending on a bit in one msr, the max is either 85 or 100. * Then we subtract the temperature portion of thermal status from * max to get current temperature. */ void intelcore_update_sensor(void *args) { struct cpu_info *ci = (struct cpu_info *) args; u_int64_t msr; int max = 100; /* Only some Core family chips have MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET. */ if (ci->ci_model == 0xe && (rdmsr(MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET) & MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET_LOW_BIT)) max = 85; The link to the Intel forums is no longer valid, though it's obvious we're getting max set to 100 here (as we're not running *core-series). So we're actually suffering from the same problem too. I'm not sure I can suggest a quality diff to the OpenBSD folks to correctly detect E640s (hence set max to 90), but I am going to fix it for my system. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 LTE On Mar 17, 2014 6:35 PM, "ED Fochler" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nikola, > > No offense taken, ever. You seem a decent fellow. As for > temperatures, I still think you’re +10C from reality. Below is output from > my two identical 6501’s at 1GHz. The FreeBSD sysctl output is a lot more > verbose, and allows you to see the assumed tjmax. Temperatures are read from > the CPU as an offset from tjmax, and everybody seems to be assuming > tjmax=100, even the BSD’s. For the 6501 and the E640 cpu with tjmax=90, you > just have a 10 off problem. > > Yay USB booting! That was an easy comparison. > > OpenBSD 5.4: > # sysctl hw > hw.machine=i386 > hw.model=Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 1.00GHz ("GenuineIntel" 686-class) > hw.ncpu=1 > hw.byteorder=1234 > hw.pagesize=4096 > hw.disknames=sd0:,sd1:8da019107644f3a2 > hw.diskcount=2 > hw.sensors.cpu0.temp0=72.00 degC > hw.cpuspeed=1001 > hw.setperf=100 > > PFSense 2.1: (FreeBSD 8.3) > > sysctl dev.cpu > dev.cpu.0.%driver: cpu > dev.cpu.0.%parent: legacy0 > dev.cpu.0.coretemp.delta: 28 > dev.cpu.0.coretemp.resolution: 1 > dev.cpu.0.coretemp.tjmax: 100.0C > dev.cpu.0.coretemp.throttle_log: 0 > dev.cpu.0.temperature: 72.0C > dev.cpu.1.%driver: cpu > dev.cpu.1.%parent: legacy0 > dev.cpu.1.coretemp.delta: 28 > dev.cpu.1.coretemp.resolution: 1 > dev.cpu.1.coretemp.tjmax: 100.0C > dev.cpu.1.coretemp.throttle_log: 0 > dev.cpu.1.temperature: 72.0C > > > On 2014, Mar 16, at 8:31 PM, Nikola Gyurov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I meant no disrespect, apologies if you felt offended. > > > > I'm also using OpenBSD, not Linux. > > Best regards, > > Nikola Gyurov > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:18 AM, ED Fochler <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> I apologize for being unclear. I agree that your TJ-Max is 90. I think > >> your sysctl measurement sounds high, as if sysctl is assuming a tjmax off > >> 100 when calculating the offset. > >> > >> http://lists.soekris.com/pipermail/soekris-tech/2012-January/018121.html > >> > >> Or perhaps you are smarter than me, and I am being foolish. :-) > >> > >> ED. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2014, Mar 16, at 8:10 PM, Nikola Gyurov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> ED, according to Intel, the tjmax for the 1 GHz Atom is 90 C (speaking > >>> about the E640 here)? > >>> There's also the 640T with tjmax of 110 C. > >>> > >>> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/intelligent-systems/queens-bay/embedded-intel-atom-e6xx-series-with-intel-platform-controller-hub-eg20t.html > >>> > >>> But how does that affect my sysctl results? > >>> > >>> P.S.: I'm using the box, not the rackmount unit. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Soekris-tech mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Soekris-tech mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech > _______________________________________________ Soekris-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech
