Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lm sensors"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Status of the upstream website: new section)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
== kernel 2.6 workaround ==
 
is '''Notice for kernels >=2.6.31''' still valid with 2.6.38 kernel? [[User:Costalfy|Costalfy]] 07:33, 19 April 2011
 
is '''Notice for kernels >=2.6.31''' still valid with 2.6.38 kernel? [[User:Costalfy|Costalfy]] 07:33, 19 April 2011
 
:If you mean the notice from [[Lm sensors#Sensors not working since Linux 2.6.31]] then yes.  The behavior is by design, not a bug.  [[User:James Eder|James Eder]] 23:45, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
 
:If you mean the notice from [[Lm sensors#Sensors not working since Linux 2.6.31]] then yes.  The behavior is by design, not a bug.  [[User:James Eder|James Eder]] 23:45, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Reading SPD values from memory modules (optional) ==
 +
 +
What is this and why is it here? What does it have to do with lm-sensors? [[User:Ziusudra|Ziusudra]] ([[User talk:Ziusudra|talk]]) 02:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Status of the upstream website ==
 +
 +
There is this thread on the mailing list: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.sensors/38615 [[User:Ziusudra|Ziusudra]] ([[User talk:Ziusudra|talk]]) 03:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:43, 27 February 2016

kernel 2.6 workaround

is Notice for kernels >=2.6.31 still valid with 2.6.38 kernel? Costalfy 07:33, 19 April 2011

If you mean the notice from Lm sensors#Sensors not working since Linux 2.6.31 then yes. The behavior is by design, not a bug. James Eder 23:45, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Reading SPD values from memory modules (optional)

What is this and why is it here? What does it have to do with lm-sensors? Ziusudra (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Status of the upstream website

There is this thread on the mailing list: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.sensors/38615 Ziusudra (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)