[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090715140057.GB19054@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:00:57 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: ykzhao <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
Cc: Crane Cai <crane.cai@....com>, "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: add driver for SMBus Control Method Interface
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 05:43:22PM +0800, ykzhao wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 14:02 +0800, Crane Cai wrote:
> > This driver supports the SMBus Control Method Interface. It needs BIOS declare
> > ACPI control methods via SMBus Control Method Interface Spec.
> It seems that SM bus control is realized in BIOS. And OS can use the
> given control method interface to access it.
> Will this controller be accessed directly directly BIOS?
> If it can be accessed by BIOS, how to resolve the conflict between BIOS
> and OS?
It's being accessed via ACPI methods, so the vendors have the
opportunity to implement proper locking.
> In fact we see the conflict on some boxes. The SMbus controller will be
> accessed by BIOS. If the corresponding driver is loaded for the SMBUS
> controller, there exists the potential risk. In such case we will hide
> the SMbus controller or not load the device driver for it.
I don't think that's a risk in this case.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists