Port addresses can be dynamically generated by the AML code and thus, there is no way that the ACPI subsystem can statically predict any addresses that will be accessed by the AML. > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jean Delvare > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:15 PM > To: Brown, Len > Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Pavel Machek > Subject: ACPI requesting I/O ports? > > Hi Len, > > As a follow up of this dicussion: > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2007-March/019015.html > > I'd like to know if it would be possible to have the acpi subsystem > somehow declare or even request the I/O ports it will be accessing when > running AML code? There is a need for this, otherwise other drivers > might access the same resources as the AML code does, with possibly bad > consequences. > > Another approach proposed by Pavel Machek would be a general mutex to > protect the AML code from the rest of the kernel, this would probably > work too but the granularity (and thus the latency) would be better > with a per-I/O-region approach. > > Thanks, > -- > Jean Delvare > - > 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 - 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
