Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can't get lm-sensors to work

Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share
July 23, 2007 2:56:17 PM

I can't seem to get the lm-sensors package to work on this computer. I've already had success on other computers, but this one has been giving me a hard time.

It's an Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 on an Intel DG965SS motherboard running Scientific Linux 5.0 (Boron) with a 2.6.18 linux kernel.

I've run sensors-detect and got:

Quote:
To make the sensors modules behave correctly, add these lines to
/etc/modprobe.conf:

#----cut here----
# I2C module options
alias char-major-89 i2c-dev
#----cut here----

To load everything that is needed, add this to some /etc/rc* file:

#----cut here----
# I2C adapter drivers
modprobe i2c-i801
# I2C chip drivers
modprobe eeprom
# sleep 2 # optional
/usr/bin/sensors -s # recommended
#----cut here----


I placed the "some /etc/rc*" file inside rc.local. I've even tried loading the modules manually, and got nothing. I tried lsmod, and it shows I don't have i2c-sensor loaded; however, modprobing for i2c_sensor or i2c-sensor gives me a "FATAL: Module i2c(-whatever you try) not found".

How can I get this to work? I've run out of ideas! Please help!!!! :bounce: 

More about : sensors work

July 23, 2007 3:22:57 PM

Oh, and one other thing: The only stuff sensors-detect actually detected was:
Quote:
Next adapter: SMBus I801 adapter at 2000
Do you want to scan it? (YES/no/selectively): yes
Client found at address 0x08
Client found at address 0x30
Client found at address 0x31
Client found at address 0x32
Client found at address 0x33
Client found at address 0x44
Probing for `Maxim MAX6633/MAX6634/MAX6635'... Failed!
Client found at address 0x50
Probing for `SPD EEPROM'... Success!
(confidence 8, driver `eeprom')
Probing for `DDC monitor'... Failed!
Probing for `Maxim MAX6900'... Failed!
Client found at address 0x51
Probing for `SPD EEPROM'... Success!
(confidence 8, driver `eeprom')
Client found at address 0x52
Probing for `SPD EEPROM'... Success!
(confidence 8, driver `eeprom')
Client found at address 0x53
Probing for `SPD EEPROM'... Success!
(confidence 8, driver `eeprom')
Client found at address 0x69


July 23, 2007 5:03:13 PM

The required modules are "i2c-i801" and "eeprom"

i2c_sensor and i2c-sensor do not exist therefore you cannot load them.


modprobe i2c-i801
modprobe eeprom
/usr/bin/sensors -s

/usr/bin/sensors

should do the trick


However you may not get any useful information from those sensors.

Some motherboards have terrible, inaccurate or incompatible sensors.

Good luck :) 
Related resources
July 23, 2007 8:33:57 PM

Thanks, linux_0. I've tried loading exactly that by doing:

/sbin/./modprobe i2c-i801
/sbin/./modprobe eeprom
/usr/bin/./sensors -s

And I still get a "No sensors found!" message. I'm thinking it may be an issue with this distro's unusual paths. I've had to manually modify the script for sensors-detect to find i2c-detect, which wasn't under usr/local/sbin, but rather under usr/sbin.

Could these strange paths be the problem? Should I do some other manual modifications? Or do I simply have an incompatible sensor chip? It's an Intel motherboard (not my choice, mind you) but I was under the impression that there would still be a reasonably reliable way to monitor hardware under linux.
July 23, 2007 9:43:40 PM

When you ran sensors-detect did you save the configuration file when prompted?

Did you install lm_sensors with yum or some other way?
July 24, 2007 3:00:00 AM

I saved the configuration file when prompted, yes. The only non-commented lines from /etc/sysconfig/lm-sensors are:
Quote:
MODULE_0=i2c-i801
MODULE_1=eeprom

These are two modules that, according to lsmod, have been loaded correctly.

I installed lm-sensors using the GNOME interface, not yum, but I suspect that won't matter. I could uninstall lm-sensors and use yum install lm-sensors, though, just to be sure.

I'll do that tomorrow. Thanks for your help.
July 24, 2007 3:51:41 AM

The GNOME interface uses yum so there's no need :) 

It is possible your board may have an incompatible sensor.

You could also try to install a new version of lm_sensors from source to see if a newer version works any better.

New motherboards are released all the time and it is very hard to keep up with all the new sensor chips and components and it is even worse if they use proprietary chips which are not open source friendly.

This problem is not unique to Linux, many windows programs which handle sensors ( speedfan, MBM5, ASUS doctor, nVidia and ATI sensors, etc ) often have the very same issues.
July 24, 2007 6:01:01 PM

Yes, I know it must be tough. There are a lot of sensor chips out there.

Well, I think I'll run a few thermals in windows with prime95 and see if this computer has reasonable maximum temperatures.

I usually use ASUS motherboards, which, AFAIK, usually have Winbond chips and thermal monitoring works OK in linux (this is an Intel mobo). I've done the sensors-detect routine before and had no problems. Well, I'll try a little more under linux, but I'm kind of giving up linux temp monitoring on this motherboard.

Thanks a lot for your help though!!! :D 
July 24, 2007 6:09:00 PM

It might work with the latest version of lm_sensors

If you can positively ID the sensor chip, you can try to google it and see if lm_sensors supports it or if there's a patch.

Good luck :) 
July 24, 2007 6:12:31 PM

Or you can get a board that works :D 
July 25, 2007 7:58:12 PM

Yeah, well, I updated the BIOS, because I was using a very old version.

But then, the machine was extremely slow. Apparently, this has to do with the fact that we're using 4GB (4 DIMMs).

Ah crap, I told them to get a better motherboard, but noone listens to me anyway.

I downgraded to the last bios that works (1669, for anyone interested), and I can then use 4GB of memory. I'm now reinstalling lm-sensors to see if there's any improvement, but I've lost my hopes with this motherboard. It's simply no good.
July 27, 2007 7:27:23 AM

I share your frustration most intel boards and intel chipsets have really disappointed me. :( 
July 27, 2007 12:59:21 PM

Well, I don't know, Intel chipsets are good on their own. But this motherboard was a disappointment.

I guess that it might be because of it being "Essential Series". It's a basic motherboard. But I don't really know. I haven't had much experience with Intel-branded motherboards... I've used ASUS and Gigabyte, mostly... and DFI mobos too. These are also great.
July 27, 2007 2:14:50 PM

ASUS, Gigabyte and DFI boards tend to be pretty good.

However I have had issues with all kinds of intel boards and chipsets. Non-intel boards and chipsets too but not quite as bad.
!