Hi Feng, On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:08:14PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:55:43 +0100 > Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 09:55:12PM +0200, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote: > > > > > Any idea why the acpi_check_resource_conflict() check gives a conflict? > > > > Because the resource range is declared in ACPI and we assume that that > > means the firmware wants to scribble on it. We'd need the output of > > acpidump to work out whether that's safe or not. > > Good point, I checked the conflict for iTCO_wdt, the conflict exists on > almost all the machines I have. > > According to ICH (7/8/9 etc)spec, the TCO watchdog has a 32 bytes long IO > space resource, and the bit 9 of TCO1_STS register is "DMISCI_STS", which > indicates whether a SCI happens, and will be cleared by writing 1 > to it. Most of DSDT table will claim a TCO op region only for one bit: > "DMISCI_STS" , as some method may need to access that bit. > > I think there is some risk, but it's quite safe as the DMISCI_STS bit has > nothing to do with TCO driver itself, and TCO driver never access it, also > this TCO driver has been there for years, and this resource conflict also > exists for many generations hardware. Makes sense to me. I'm queueing this one to my for-linus branch, I'll send a pull request soon. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ -- 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
