Re: [PATCH 1/3] resource: shared I/O region support

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 03/29/2010 10:38 AM, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> 
> Patch after this line:
> ========================================================================
> resource: shared I/O region support
> 
> SuperIO devices share regions and use lock/unlock operations to chip
> select.  We therefore need to be able to request a resource and wait for
> it to be freed by whichever other SuperIO device currently hogs it.
> Right now you have to poll which is horrible.
> 
> Add a MUXED field to IO port resources. If the MUXED field is set on the
> resource and on the request (via request_muxed_region) then we block
> until the previous owner of the muxed resource releases their region.
> 
> This allows us to implement proper resource sharing and locking for
> superio chips using code of the form
> 
> enable_my_superio_dev() {
> 	request_muxed_region(0x44, 0x02, "superio:watchdog");
> 	outb() ..sequence to enable chip
> }
> 
> disable_my_superio_dev() {
> 	outb() .. sequence of disable chip
> 	release_region(0x44, 0x02);
> }
> 
> Signed-off-by: Giel van Schijndel <me@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I have to question this approach a bit.

I would much rather see this as a two-step process, where multiple
devices request the same region with a "sharable" flag, and then have a
mutex associated with the struct resource (perhaps we need an outer
container called "struct muxed_resource" or some such.)

What I *really* object to with this patch is that it inherently assumes
that there is only one multiplexed resource in the entire system... but
of course nowhere enforces that.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/