Hi Thilo, On mar., 2016-04-12 at 09:33 +0200, Thilo Cestonaro wrote: > Hey Jean, > > Am 12.04.2016 09:02, schrieb Jean Delvare: > > Hi Thilo, > > > > On lun., 2016-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Thilo Cestonaro wrote: > >> > Whenever I load the i2c-i801 smbus controller module I get a resource > >> conflict with the ACPI: > >> > ----------------------- > >> > ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x000000000000F040-0x000000000000F05F > >> > conflicts with OpRegion 0x000000000000F040-0x000000000000F04F > >> > (\_SB_.PCI0.SBUS.SMBI) (20150619/utaddress-254) > >> > ----------------------- > >> > > >> > >> As the resource conflict is about the IO resource, I overworked the > >> i2c-i801 module to use the MEM resource which is altough available. > >> This is IMHO the better alternative to using the > >> "acpi_enforce_resources=lax" boot parameter. > >> > >> The patched module is working on my machine. > > > > To be honest, I didn't know the 82801 SMBus controller supported memory > > access. Does it actually work since the first supported controller > > (82801AA)? > > > Good question! Perhaps I will implement an IO and MEM access depending > on the ACPI conflict prioizing the IO access. > > > But anyway, I can't see how using it solves any problem. I guess you > > access the very same registers, just using a different method. If the > > BIOS is actually using the SMBus controller, you have exactly the same > > conflict as before, the only difference is that it is no longer > > reported. This would be a regression, not an improvement. > > > You are absolutely right, it doesn't solve anything so it is just an > alternative to the boot parameter. > The advantage IMHO is, that you don't need to add the boot parameter and > that this change only affects the module itself, > instead of like the parameter the whole system. It is true that acpi_enforce_resources affects the whole system. But is it a real problem in practice. > I can still show the conflict by checking the MEM resource and the IO > resource, so the user will be informed about the problem but can use > it's smbus. That's exactly what acpi_enforce_resources=lax does. > Currently if the conflict will be shown the probe returns an error. Only with acpi_enforce_resources=strict. > Hmm, perhaps showing the conflict and not returning with an error is the > more easier way. Many use the boot parameter and haven't reported > problems with it, > so I think using it despite the conflict wouldn't do any harm. Just because they haven't hit any problem yet, doesn't mean it can't happen. That is the nature of race conditions. It is simply wrong for a native driver to access an ACPI-reserved resource. If a BIOS reserves a resource for ACPI usage, it should offer an OS interface to access the device safely, and the OS needs an ACPI driver for that interface. Anything else is just a hack (be it acpi_enforce_resources=lax or your proposal.) The reason why we made acpi_enforce_resources=strict the default is so that the awareness of the problem grows, and BIOS vendors finally start caring about it. And it starts working, after many years, see: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110041 If Intel starts caring then maybe we'll see better BIOSes in the future. They provide the reference BIOS to board makers as far as I know. So I'm not taking your patch, sorry. Doing so would break the whole plan. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
