On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 03:54:18PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 01.07.2020 15:48, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > > I actually tried, but when reading `addr` or `addr+1` I had the same > > value. So I guess `addr` wasn't taken into account. > > AFAICS, these registers aren't actually supposed to be accessed like this > as addr+1. ACPI and ISA spec states multiple times that `addr' should be > accessible as 8/16/32 bits, but it does not mention `addr+1' or `addr+2'.
I guess that's why there's never been a "fix" for this before. Thanks for the explanation. > So far all now-rejected accesses we've seen (not that many but still) goes > to `addr', not to any other variation of it. > > /mjt -- Anthony PERARD
