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, 9 Mar 2007 11:24:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20070309112420.42420cf2.khali@linux-fr.org> References: <20070302220454.a0c66d04.khali@linux-fr.org> <20070309071855.GA5148@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp-105-friday.noc.nerim.net ([62.4.17.105]:4220 "EHLO mallaury.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993105AbXCIKZj (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 05:25:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070309071855.GA5148@ucw.cz> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Machek , "Moore, Robert" Cc: Matthew Garrett , Chuck Ebbert , Rudolf Marek , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:18:56 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Port (and memory) addresses can be dynamically generated by the AML code > > and thus, there is no way that the ACPI subsystem can statically predict > > any addresses that will be accessed by the AML. > > Can you take this as a wishlist item? > > It would be nice if next version of acpi specs supported table > > 'AML / SMM BIOS will access these ports' > > ...so we can get it correct with acpi4 or something..? I can only second Pavel's wish here. This would be highly convenient for OS developers to at least know which resources are accessed by AML and SMM. Without this information, we can never be sure that OS-level code won't conflict with ACPI or SMM. -- Jean Delvare