Port (and memory) addresses can be dynamically generated by the AML code and thus, there is no way that the ACPI subsystem can statically predict any addresses that will be accessed by the AML. > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-acpi-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi- > owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jean Delvare > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:05 PM > To: Matthew Garrett > Cc: Pavel Machek; Chuck Ebbert; Rudolf Marek; linux-acpi at vger.kernel.org; > linux-kernel; lm-sensors at lm-sensors.org > Subject: Re: Could the k8temp driver be interfering with > ACPI? > > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:18:40 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 03:10:55PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > > I'm not familiar with APCI at all so I didn't know, but what you write > > > here brings some hope. Would it be possible to parse all the DSDT code > > > at boot time and deduce all the ports which ACPI would need to request > > > to be safe? Or do we have to wait for the accesses to actually happen? > > > > In theory I /think/ so, but it would probably end up being an > > overestimate of the coverage actually needed. Trapping at runtime is > > arguably more elegant? > > It might be more elegant but it won't work. We don't want to prevent > ACPI from accessing these I/O ports. If we need to choose only one > "driver" accessing the I/O port, it must be acpi, at leat for now, > despite the fact that acpi provides very weak hardware monitoring > capabilities compared to the specific drivers. > > Why would we end up with an overestimation if we check the I/O ports at > boot time? Do you have concrete cases in mind? > > Thanks, > -- > Jean Delvare > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
