From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI? Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:41:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20070302224155.143b8643.khali@linux-fr.org> References: <45D5EA88.7090300@redhat.com> <45D6DDCE.5050803@assembler.cz> <45D7461A.2040808@redhat.com> <20070218183805.5a4fd813.khali@linux-fr.org> <20070228213803.GA4877@ucw.cz> <20070301152655.f232db64.khali@linux-fr.org> <20070302114023.GD2163@elf.ucw.cz> <20070302150313.198b6053.khali@linux-fr.org> <20070302145709.GA3710@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp-105-friday.nerim.net ([62.4.16.105]:3207 "EHLO kraid.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030185AbXCBVoR (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:44:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070302145709.GA3710@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Pavel Machek , Chuck Ebbert , Rudolf Marek , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org Hi Matthew, On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:57:09 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > How about this? It's informational only, but ought to result in > complaints whenever ACPI tries to touch something that other hardware > has reserved. We can't fail these accesses, but in theory we could > consider some sort of locking layer that made it possible to interact > anyway. I haven't even checked if this builds, but I think the concept > is reasonable. I like the patch, after adding some casts to the printf args it compiles fine. However you print warnings each time a resource has been reserved... without checking if it hasn't been reserved by ACPI itself! My machine looks like this: 1000-107f : 0000:00:1f.0 1000-1003 : ACPI PM1a_EVT_BLK 1004-1005 : ACPI PM1a_CNT_BLK 1008-100b : ACPI PM_TMR 1010-1015 : ACPI CPU throttle 1020-1020 : ACPI PM2_CNT_BLK 1028-102b : ACPI GPE0_BLK 102c-102f : ACPI GPE1_BLK Given that these ports were reserved by ACPI it is perfectly legitimate that ACPI accesses it, so we must not print a warning in this case. We need to exclude from the test the regions those "name" starts with "ACPI", but I'm not sure how we can do that. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare