From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rudolf Marek Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:57:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] w83793 related question Message-Id: <49F01152.30108@assembler.cz> List-Id: References: <49E45712.6020906@aei.mpg.de> In-Reply-To: <49E45712.6020906@aei.mpg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org > What makes you think there is a relation between SMM and ACPI? There should be. See ACPI specs and Global lock chapter. It should be a hw lock between ACPI and SMM code touching the hw. Maybe we are lucky and something like this is really implemented. But since the 1) is true I would suspect that we just see some other transactions. >> 3) Make a driver more bullet proof. Maybe it would be possible somehow to force >> the driver to have a longer timeouts, more retries etc. > > This is pointless. If another entity is accessing the chip without > proper locking, no amount of timeouts or retries will help. In this > scenario, reported errors are in fact the best thing than can happen. > The worst case is silent misbehavior. It is not pointless if this entity is just observed. I mean it is not using the i2c hw like our driver but it is using the bus itself. Thanks, Rudolf _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors