From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9DCFC433E1 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3F1120737 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="EbKwPs+9" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A3F1120737 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:49786 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyb4O-00024h-Qx for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 09:15:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48876) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyb3p-0001dd-0z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 09:14:57 -0400 Received: from esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com ([216.71.155.144]:18580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyb3n-0003MI-2U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 09:14:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1595510095; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=SGBze1Rjcp7fRvfsWjbOM2rEJ4H/kksfqLsKRbOGU0I=; b=EbKwPs+9MWqxIAYsTpojK9FZsdE4SSeZ6sWz77QfkC2wgOk+5Ah0mvI9 0R4x2b+xucH5cz36k+g0dBh3TfEnpj2XRwwqSHXmImH20hiwQcmk3wgrT B3pmlu3zjgItLbZOi+Mi085dbyC8aAeXhSih4Ym3zKLvn7iG6Tjjhh5Ed c=; Authentication-Results: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: 5qdSDU3UUcaR8NZWLyQCc/rdwSlq6EykCbuVoDXqyKfhf94BhiolQ5uBfPtT+gKxGbeWTDQU5j eUb87uKOh6ZoTVhfiKLAzx1WBOveZTUre1NKvvfhf0yniOZAWvXRBIoWx5RXJZHclvN0Io0B8U j+E3hF1+pRNd7mRKGHsWWiiNT5TyCMOp07cRm1isbXTx/FaW8KJPjKS5DjGg5g1SnGonGt6Pu2 8NdSMjBKR5tBxSlT1VsL8l3IchNSN7TBwPA5U/z8g3D2jmRL8T4V7Lk4Ym4PRLSiA+qC7Pwnqy WcM= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 23901120 X-Ironport-Server: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,386,1589256000"; d="scan'208";a="23901120" Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:14:50 +0100 From: Anthony PERARD To: Michael Tokarev Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: Fix access to PM1 control and status registers Message-ID: <20200723131450.GB2866@perard.uk.xensource.com> References: <20200701110549.148522-1-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <20200701075914-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20200701124836.GD2030@perard.uk.xensource.com> <3eb33054-e9b0-58f2-8d50-9cc26314dcfb@msgid.tls.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3eb33054-e9b0-58f2-8d50-9cc26314dcfb@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.71.155.144; envelope-from=anthony.perard@citrix.com; helo=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/23 09:14:52 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = FreeBSD 9.x or newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -53 X-Spam_score: -5.4 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Igor Mammedov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 03:54:18PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 01.07.2020 15:48, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > > I actually tried, but when reading `addr` or `addr+1` I had the same > > value. So I guess `addr` wasn't taken into account. > > AFAICS, these registers aren't actually supposed to be accessed like this > as addr+1. ACPI and ISA spec states multiple times that `addr' should be > accessible as 8/16/32 bits, but it does not mention `addr+1' or `addr+2'. I guess that's why there's never been a "fix" for this before. Thanks for the explanation. > So far all now-rejected accesses we've seen (not that many but still) goes > to `addr', not to any other variation of it. > > /mjt -- Anthony PERARD