From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: [PATCH 0/2] acpi_read() bit_offset support Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:05:03 -0700 Message-ID: <20111111230347.20897.28797.stgit@bhelgaas.mtv.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-gy0-f202.google.com ([209.85.160.202]:62830 "EHLO mail-gy0-f202.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751711Ab1KKXMy (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:12:54 -0500 Received: by gye5 with SMTP id 5so404689gye.1 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:12:53 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: Bob Moore , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, bondd@us.ibm.com, Huang Ying , Myron Stowe , Thomas Renninger We seem to be stuck in a morass of issues surrounding APEI and generic address structures. I don't know how to cut that Gordian knot, but here's a possible tiny step forward. I think we have general agreement that acpi_read() and friends *should* pay attention to the generic address structure bit_offset, so these patches add support for it. It's done the same way as in the APEI accessors, so I hope there's consensus that the semantics are correct. We believe that today, only APEI uses generic address structures with non-zero bit_offset (based on the fact that Google doesn't find any "Unsupported register bit offset" warnings). APEI currently uses its own accessors, so these patches don't affect it. --- Bjorn Helgaas (2): ACPICA: acpi_read: update return value atomically ACPICA: support Generic Address Structure bit_offset in acpi_read/write drivers/acpi/acpica/hwregs.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++------------ drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxface.c | 17 +++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) -- Bjorn