On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 03:16 +0000, Zha, Qipeng wrote:
> >
> > > > + ipcdev.base[BIOS_MAILBOX] = addr;
> > > > + addr += MAILBOX_REGISTER_SPACE;
> > > > + ipcdev.base[GTDRIVER_MAILBOX] = addr;
> > > > + addr += MAILBOX_REGISTER_SPACE;
> > > > + ipcdev.base[ISPDRIVER_MAILBOX] = addr;
>
> > > Looks akward, does the platform have the several resources for
> > > different purpose? Why do you unify them (who does guarantee the
> > > non-breakable segment for all resources?) first and then split
> > > up?
> > > Please, refactor.
>
> > From spec, these three parts are consecutive, so only define one
> > acpi resource entry is reasonable way,
> > But BIOS maintainer finally make the resource like this due to
> > request from Window os driver,
> > So can't treat these three as three separate parts.
>
> Andriy, Darren: this is my before feedback, and
> a) Punit function is configured as ACPI device in BIOS, not PCI
> device(seems can't configure as PCI).
> b) To make it compatible(same acpi entry) for WOS, BIOS define Punit
> mem resource as res0, so this driver is coding as this.
> So this driver is depend on acpi entry in BIOS to get device
> resource like all acpi device drivers.
> In future, I don't think BIOS will change current defined
> resource for Punit function.
Can you show the excerpt from DSDT then?
>
>
>
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Finland Oy
Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki
Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4
Domiciled in Helsinki
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
��.n��������+%������w��{.n������_���v��z����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
