[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Corey,
>
> Here is the patch (RHEL5 base code) I've been testing that detects the ACPI
> namespace object.
> The IPI0001 device doesn't contain the register spacing directly; it has a
> _CRS resource object that
> (for KCS) has two I/O port entries. I save the first port in io.addr_data,
> then calculate the register spacing based on subtracting the 2nd port address
> and the 1st.
>
This patch looks pretty good, comments inline below.
> I'm thinking of changing the register spacing to using an array of
> port/memory addresses to make calculating interface addresses more generic.
>
Ok, I'll wait until you are sure here. The changes below are fine, they
neaten things up a little. It would probably need to be a separate patch.
> eg.
> static unsigned char port_inb(struct si_sm_io *io, unsigned int offset)
> {
> unsigned int addr = io->addr_data;
>
> return inb(addr + (offset * io->regspacing));
> }
>
> would become something like:
> static unsigned char port_inb(struct si_sm_io *io, unsigned int offset)
> {
> unsigned int addr = io->addr_data[offset];
>
> return inb(addr);
> }
>
> --jordan hargrave
> Dell Enterprise Linux Engineering
>
>
>
> +
> +static struct acpi_driver acpi_ipmi_driver = {
> + .name = ACPI_IPMI_DRIVER_NAME,
> + .class = ACPI_IPMI_CLASS,
> + .ids = ACPI_IPMI_HID,
> + .ops = {
> + .add = acpi_ipmi_add,
> + .remove = acpi_ipmi_remove,
> + },
> +};
>
Need to fix the indention above.
Also, we need to delete the old code, I think.
> @@ -1576,6 +1694,12 @@ static __devinit void acpi_find_bmc(void
> if (acpi_failure)
> return;
>
> + /* Really we only need to get the IPMI device handle here */
> + acpi_bus_register_driver(&acpi_ipmi_driver);
> + acpi_bus_unregister_driver(&acpi_ipmi_driver);
>
Again, I don't know ACPI, but the above code looks rather strange.
Thanks,
-Corey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
