Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933940Ab2HWRUq (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:20:46 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:48047 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964857Ab2HWRUm (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:20:42 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,301,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="190540608" Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:13:15 +0200 From: Samuel Ortiz To: Feng Tang Cc: Matthew Garrett , Wim Van Sebroeck , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aaron Sierra , Bob Moore , Guenter Roeck , rui.zhang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] lpc_ich: Fix a 3.5 kernel regression for iTCO_wdt driver Message-ID: <20120823171315.GD9889@sortiz-mobl> References: <1344959772-23018-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20120822195512.GI27604@spo001.leaseweb.com> <20120822215543.GA1954@srcf.ucam.org> <20120823130814.6ba359e9@feng-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120823130814.6ba359e9@feng-i7> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1681 Lines: 41 Hi Feng, On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:08:14PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:55:43 +0100 > Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 09:55:12PM +0200, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote: > > > > > Any idea why the acpi_check_resource_conflict() check gives a conflict? > > > > Because the resource range is declared in ACPI and we assume that that > > means the firmware wants to scribble on it. We'd need the output of > > acpidump to work out whether that's safe or not. > > Good point, I checked the conflict for iTCO_wdt, the conflict exists on > almost all the machines I have. > > According to ICH (7/8/9 etc)spec, the TCO watchdog has a 32 bytes long IO > space resource, and the bit 9 of TCO1_STS register is "DMISCI_STS", which > indicates whether a SCI happens, and will be cleared by writing 1 > to it. Most of DSDT table will claim a TCO op region only for one bit: > "DMISCI_STS" , as some method may need to access that bit. > > I think there is some risk, but it's quite safe as the DMISCI_STS bit has > nothing to do with TCO driver itself, and TCO driver never access it, also > this TCO driver has been there for years, and this resource conflict also > exists for many generations hardware. Makes sense to me. I'm queueing this one to my for-linus branch, I'll send a pull request soon. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/