On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:04:54PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:18:40 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > In theory I /think/ so, but it would probably end up being an > > overestimate of the coverage actually needed. Trapping at runtime is > > arguably more elegant? > > It might be more elegant but it won't work. We don't want to prevent > ACPI from accessing these I/O ports. If we need to choose only one > "driver" accessing the I/O port, it must be acpi, at leat for now, > despite the fact that acpi provides very weak hardware monitoring > capabilities compared to the specific drivers. Assuming arbitration of access, what's the problem with having two drivers accessing the same hardware? Do these chips generally have any significant internal state other than trip points and the like? > Why would we end up with an overestimation if we check the I/O ports at > boot time? Do you have concrete cases in mind? ACPI will often describe large operation regions, but won't necessarily touch all of them. Effectively, every codepath would have to be walked through at boot time and checked for io access. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
