Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
> On 7/15/2014 4:03 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 07/15/2014 12:41 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
>>> Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:21:51PM +0200, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
>>>>> Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:23:08PM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
>>>>>>> + if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model == 0x60) {
>>>>>>> + pci_bus_write_config_dword(pdev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0),
>>>>>>> + NB_SMU_IND_ADDR, IND_ADDR_OFFSET);
>>>>>>> + pci_bus_read_config_dword(pdev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0),
>>>>>>> + NB_SMU_IND_DATA, ®val);
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you prevent races with any other code that accesses some indirect
>>>>> register?
>>>
>>> If there actually is any other code; these indirect SMU registers appear
>>> to be mostly undocumented and to be intended to be used by the BIOS.
>>> (Which makes me wonder why the temperature sensor was moved there.)
>>
>> Scary. Does that mean there is a chance they may get used through ACPI ?
>
> I have been asking internally about this, and looks like it's just a register address change.
> So we probably don't have to worry about this being used elsewhere..
The conflict is about the SMU index register; the question is whether
_any_ of these SMU registers is used elsewhere (in a way that could
happen concurrently).
Regards,
Clemens
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
