https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=484019
--- Comment #20 from Jiri Palecek <jpale...@web.de> --- (In reply to Thomas Berger from comment #19) > This led me down the correct path: > - We define a Sensor via makeSensorsFeatureSensor for each CPU on the first > found k10temp chip > - for the other found chips, we override the newly created sensors with null > ptrs Yeah! Good catch. > While there are multiple ways to fix this, none of them seems like a good > idea. Well, for a start, guarding the call to makeSensorsFeatureSensor with an if (!m_temperature) seems warranted. Or else, we could get rid of m_temperature altogether (and make the code cleaner). > We would have to map the temperatures to the cores on the appropriate > DIE, or the user loses important information (imagine one DIE sitting near > the upper limit because of an thermal/contact issue, but the first DIE is ok > ....). Yeah, that's exactly true. Also pertains to dual cpu setups. Maybe it could suffice to map the sensors to correct packages through differing NUMA nodes (but are they always different?) and then use the Tccd* sensors and die numbers from /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/topology. That would need experimentation with the actual hardware. > I would propose that we wait how the discussion in > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490675 plays out, before taking actions > here. Yeah but that's for somebody else to decide. > Thx btw, now i learned something new today! Good to hear that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
