Hi Mika, On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:39:51 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:12:38PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > I think Pali is correct. The only purpose of handling the region is to > > detect that it is being accessed so we can set priv->acpi_reserved. > > Once it is set, i801_acpi_io_handler becomes transparent: it forwards > > the requests without doing anything with them. The very same would > > happen if we would unregister the handler at that point, but without the > > extra overhead. > > > > So while the current code does work fine, unregistering the handler > > when we set priv->acpi_reserved would be more optimal. > > > > Unless both Pali and myself are missing something, that is. > > I'm not sure unregistering the handler actually resets back to the > default handler. I'm no ACPI expert. I read the code of acpi_remove_address_space_handler() and a few other related ACPI functions and can't claim I understood it all. But indeed it doesn't look like it restores the original behavior. Probably acpi_install_address_space_handler(..., ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO, ACPI_DEFAULT_HANDLER, ...) should be used instead. This raises another question though: if acpi_remove_address_space_handler() doesn't restore the previous behavior then we shouldn't be calling it when the driver is being unloaded either. As I understand it, it breaks the ACPI handling of the device. However I can't test it, as the installed handler is never called on my system. Can anyone test unloading the i2c-i801 driver on a system where ACPI actually accesses the device? After looking at the ACPI code, I am no longer convinced that restoring the default handler would improve performance. The default handler itself (acpi_ex_system_io_space_handler) has a lot of overhead. OTOH this makes me wonder if it is really correct to call acpi_os_read_port() and acpi_os_write_port() directly. acpi_ex_system_io_space_handler() calls acpi_hw_read_port() and acpi_hw_write_port() which perform additional checks. Actually it would seem safer to call acpi_ex_system_io_space_handler() instead... if it was exported. Oh well. > Besides, this patch has been already merged for a while > so it requires a followup patch on top. Correct, whatever we do. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support -- 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
