From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:04:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:04:46 -0400 Received: from saturn.cs.uml.edu ([129.63.8.2]:44038 "EHLO saturn.cs.uml.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:04:31 -0400 From: "Albert D. Cahalan" Message-Id: <200106080003.f5803wl370740@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Subject: Re: temperature standard - global config option? To: bootc@worldnet.fr (Chris Boot) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Cc: dbr@greenhydrant.com (David Rees), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org) In-Reply-To: from "Chris Boot" at Jun 07, 2001 11:37:01 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Chris Boot writes: >>>> Kelvins good idea in general - it is always positive ;-) >>>> >>>> 0.01*K fits in 16 bits and gives reasonable range. ... > OK, I think by now we've all agreed the following: > - The issue is NOT displaying temperatures to the user, but a userspace > program reading them from the kernel. The userspace program itself can > do temperature conversions for the user if he/she wants. > - The most preferable units would be decikelvins, as the value can give a > relatively precise as well as wide range of numbers ranging from absolute > zero to about 6340 degrees Celsius ((65535 / 10) - 273) which is well > within anything that a computer can operate. It also gives us a good > base for all sorts of other temperature sensing devices. > > Do we all agree on those now? I nearly do. There isn't any need to cram the data into 16 bits. The offset to Celsius is 273.15 degrees. So hundredths of a degree, in Kelvin, is a better choice.