lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [31]   [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
From
Date
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 00:48 +0800, Frans Pop wrote:
> 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.

this is a problem.
how about something like:
#define THERMAL_PASSIVE_WARNING_LEVEL 0x40000

if (state < THERMAL_PASSIVE_WARNING_LEVEL)
printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "Passive trip point too low, this may"
"slow down your laptop because processors are throttled "
"whenever the temperature is higher than %dC\n", state/1000);

thanks,
rui

> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-31 10:39    [W:0.050 / U:31.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site