On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 13:34 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > On 04/09/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Imagine an i2c chip with indexed register access. What stops: > > > > CPU0 (i2c): CPU1 (ACPI): > > SBWB register address > > SBWB register address > > SBRB register value > > SBRB register value > > > > Your example is no different from what we've told people to do right now when > they see the ACPI resource conflict message and use a kernel parameter to > override the error condition. I'm not disputing that this could be a problem > -- > see my previous comment about hoping that someone @ Intel will let us know if > we're doing something horrible.
Right. It's dangerous, which is why we forbid it by default. How do we benefit from having a driver that's no safer? -- Matthew Garrett <[email protected]>
