From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI? Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:18:43 -0600 Message-ID: <200704131218.44045.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> References: <45D5EA88.7090300@redhat.com> <20070302114023.GD2163@elf.ucw.cz> <20070302150313.198b6053.khali@linux-fr.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from atlrel9.hp.com ([156.153.255.214]:45727 "EHLO atlrel9.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754119AbXDMSUA (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:20:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070302150313.198b6053.khali@linux-fr.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Pavel Machek , Chuck Ebbert , Rudolf Marek , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org On Friday 02 March 2007 07:03, Jean Delvare wrote: > ... The primary issue is the concurrent access > to resources, which cause lots of trouble which are hard to investigate. > If ACPI reserves the ports, then the SMBus or hardware monitoring > drivers (or any other conflicting driver) will cleanly fail to load, > which would be a move in the right direction. ... > > So, can ACPI actually reserve the ports it accesses? Sorry to join this discussion so late. ACPI tells us the resources used by devices. Today, we don't reserve ACPI resources until a driver claims a device. PCI does some sort of reservation up front, before the driver claims devices. Conceptually, I think ACPI should do the same thing, and I don't think it's that hard to do. But breaking things like lmsensors would make the transition painful. Bjorn From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:18:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI? Message-Id: <200704131218.44045.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> List-Id: References: <45D5EA88.7090300@redhat.com> <20070302114023.GD2163@elf.ucw.cz> <20070302150313.198b6053.khali@linux-fr.org> In-Reply-To: <20070302150313.198b6053.khali@linux-fr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jean Delvare Cc: Pavel Machek , Chuck Ebbert , Rudolf Marek , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org On Friday 02 March 2007 07:03, Jean Delvare wrote: > ... The primary issue is the concurrent access > to resources, which cause lots of trouble which are hard to investigate. > If ACPI reserves the ports, then the SMBus or hardware monitoring > drivers (or any other conflicting driver) will cleanly fail to load, > which would be a move in the right direction. ... > > So, can ACPI actually reserve the ports it accesses? Sorry to join this discussion so late. ACPI tells us the resources used by devices. Today, we don't reserve ACPI resources until a driver claims a device. PCI does some sort of reservation up front, before the driver claims devices. Conceptually, I think ACPI should do the same thing, and I don't think it's that hard to do. But breaking things like lmsensors would make the transition painful. Bjorn _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors