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?
I just wanted to ask exactly the same question. I think this will need
locking.
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..
Anyway, if a lock is needed, it looks as if it could go into a helper
function such as "amd_nb_smu_ind_read()" in arch/x86/kernel/amd_nb.c.
Yes, something like that.
Okay, I shall add the locking mechanism and re-send.
Thanks,
-Aravind.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
