From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965924AbXCFPUZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:20:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965925AbXCFPUZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:20:25 -0500 Received: from smtp-102-tuesday.noc.nerim.net ([62.4.17.102]:3365 "EHLO mallaury.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965924AbXCFPUY (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:20:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:19:35 +0100 From: Jean Delvare To: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> Cc: David Hubbard , Matthew Garrett , Pavel Machek , linux-kernel , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Ebbert , Rudolf@atrpms.net Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI? Message-Id: <20070306161935.025a3ec1.khali@linux-fr.org> In-Reply-To: References: <7PvLN-1cj-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <7TEGV-6Jy-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <7TUBX-6TN-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <7UeqX-4QO-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <7UeqZ-4QO-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <7UgM5-np-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <7UgM8-np-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <7UnaS-2xP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <7UnkC-2JB-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <7Uzcd-49u-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <7UEEN-4xi-3@gated-at.bofh.it> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.10 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Bodo, On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:56:44 +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote: > 1) Make a general resource allocation lock, if there is none. Such a lock certainly exists, but I doubt it is public at the moment. > 2) make ACPI take this lock whenever it touches ports not allocated by itself > and release it on function return. This is costly. > 3) Make ACPI callback the allocating device if it touches allocated ranges, > and on function return. By callback, do you mean port forwarding as Rudolf Marek did, or more simple "stop touching the device" and "you can touch the device again" sort of signals? If the latter, this is no different from a mutex. > 1 + 2 will replace allocating single ports and freeing them again (so ACPI won't > prevent e.g. the display driver from loading just because it turned on the > backlight) while preventing races with newly allocated ranges, and 3 allows > coexistence with other drivers. What benefit do you see compared to a lock taken by both AML and the hardware monitoring drivers? Care to submit a sample implementation? Thanks, -- Jean Delvare