On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:34:34 +0100, Andi Kleen said: > On Saturday 29 December 2007 03:30:17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:11:51 +0100, Andi Kleen said: > > > On Friday 28 December 2007 21:40:28 Russell Leidich wrote: > > > > > + printk(KERN_CRIT "CPU 0x%x: Thermal monitoring not " > > > + "functional.\n", cpu); > > > > > > Why is that KERN_CRIT? Does not seem that critical to me. > > > > If you think you're running on a chipset that *should* support thermal > > monitoring, and it isn't there in a usable state, that seems pretty critical > > to me. If that didn't work, you probably can't trust the "oh, the chip will > > thermal-limit itself if it gets to 100C or whatever" either. > > Thermal shutdown in emergency uses quite different mechanisms (e.g. it goes > directly through pins to the motherboard); i don't think that code checks for > that.
Right. My point is that if monitoring *should* be working, and it isn't, then you don't have a lot of reason to be 100% confident that those pins are working either. Unless there's two totally separate temperature sensors - otherwise, if that sensor goes out, thermal monitoring and the emergency stuff *both* break. Of course, if somebody wise on the actual hardware design can definitively state that even if the thermal sensor the monitoring uses dies, the chipset will still thermal-throttle correctly, then I'd agree that the message could go down to KERN_ERR or KERN_WARN.....
pgpmPQNQjoxbm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
