From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Jenkins Subject: Re: a problem about the two patches in bug 10724 & 11428 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:26:17 +0100 Message-ID: <48BD06B9.4060204@tuffmail.co.uk> References: <1220251221.4039.52.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> <48BB9E86.7070503@suse.de> <1220320791.4039.128.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> <48BCFB18.60706@suse.de> <1220347864.4039.189.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.250]:64108 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750855AbYIBJ0X (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2008 05:26:23 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d40so369960and.103 for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:26:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1220347864.4039.189.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Zhao Yakui Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org Zhao Yakui wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 12:36 +0400, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > >>> In fact when EC timeout happens in interrupt mode, it indicates that >>> EC controller can't return response in time. >>> >> Wrong. Some EC controllers are "optimized" to not send interrupts for each confirmation. >> See history of EC patches for these optimization workarounds. >> > Maybe what you said is right. But in fact as is defined in ACPI spec, EC > controller should issue an interrupt according to the status of IBF and > OBF. More detailed info about EC interrupt model can be found in the > section 12.6.2 of ACPI 3.0b spec. > If some EC controller are "optimized" to not send interrupts, is it > appropriate to reject such bugs? > Not really. If it works on "The Other OS", it is a bug that it doesn't work on this one. That's a specific policy of the linux ACPI implementation. Given both the complexity and importance of ACPI I think it is the right policy. Alan