* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> well then we could insert CF9 to before the triple fault, and solve > >> some of the problems as well, without unnecessary risks. > >> > >> This is a separate patch from ACPI reboot itself, naturally. > >> > > > > This is a pretty good point. There is extremely low risk of being > > something at port CF9 that is something other than the reset > > register. It may not be there, but if it isn't, the worst thing > > that happened is we confused a device right before reset. > > > > Even better if we condition the port CF9 write on existence a PCI > > bus (or even more specifically PCI Configuration Method #1 or #2). > > Port CF9 is extremely unlikely to exist on a machine without a PCI > > bus, and extremely unlikely to conflict with anything else on a > > machine with a PCI bus. > > Yes. What we are guarding against in practice is a write that > causes the system to hang. Anything else and we will make it to the > next reset method. yeah. Patches are welcome :) Ingo -- 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
