On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 13:34 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Imagine an i2c chip with indexed register access. What stops:
> >
> > CPU0 (i2c): CPU1 (ACPI):
> > SBWB register address
> > SBWB register address
> > SBRB register value
> > SBRB register value
> >
>
> Your example is no different from what we've told people to do right now when
> they see the ACPI resource conflict message and use a kernel parameter to
> override the error condition. I'm not disputing that this could be a problem --
> see my previous comment about hoping that someone @ Intel will let us know if
> we're doing something horrible.
Right. It's dangerous, which is why we forbid it by default. How do we
benefit from having a driver that's no safer?
--
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
