[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/6] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 06:17:23PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Values below 40000 milli-celsius (limit is somewhat arbitrary)
> > don't make sense and can cause the system to go into a thermal
> > heart attack: the actual temperature will always be lower and
> > thus the system will be throttled down to its lowest setting.
> Not keen on this - it's a pretty arbitrary cutoff, and there are some
> cases where someone might want this value. Policy belongs in userspace,
> and all that.

What cases do you see? Testing? Or systems that might have to operate at
such a low temperature? I deliberately chose a value that's at a level
that's easy to reach.

I agree it is arbitrary, but it will prevent major confusion when someone
like me echo's 95 directly in sysfs.
Would 1000 (1 °C) perhaps be more acceptable as a limit? I doubt there are
valid use-cases for below 0 temps :-)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-26 18:51    [W:0.053 / U:27.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site