On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 17:09:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 13:02 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > On 04/09/2014 12:36 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > method with one of these names exists is no guarantee that it has the > > > same behaviour as the ones on your board. There's no guarantee that > > > you're not racing against the firmware. > > > > I think there is -- AFAICT the operations are serialized; if they aren't > > that is > > an associated risk. Hopefully someone from Intel will lend a hand here and > > let > > me know if I'm doing something horrible ;) > > 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 > > and CPU0 getting back the wrong value?
Certainly there is some ACPI lock to prevent ACPI from racing with itself. Can't we just use it too? -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
