Hi,In my experimental code I am using DMI to determine the platform and provide
From: Devel [mailto:devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zheng, Lv
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 5:40 PM
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Moore, Robert <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxx; Wysocki, Rafael J <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>;
linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH] ACPICA: Export mutex functions
Hi,
From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx]anything.
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: Export mutex functions
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:29:55PM +0000, Moore, Robert wrote:
The ACPICA mutex functions are based on the host OS functions, so they don't really buy you
You should just use the native Linux functions.
You mean they don't really acquire the requested ACPI mutex,
and the underlying DSDT which declares and uses the mutex
just ignores if the mutex was acquired by acpi_acquire_mutex() ?
To clarify: You are saying that code such as
acpi_status status;
status = acpi_acquire_mutex(NULL, "\\_SB.PCI0.SBRG.SIO1.MUT0", 0x10);
if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
pr_err("Failed to acquire ACPI mutex\n");
return -EBUSY;
}
Why do you need to access \_SB.PCI0.SBRG.SIO1.MUT0?
OSPM should only invoke entry methods predefined by ACPI spec or whatever specs.
There shouldn't be any needs that a driver acquires an arbitrary AML mutex.
You do not seem to have justified the usage model, IMO.
Thanks
Lv
...
when used in conjunction with
...
Mutex (MUT0, 0x00)
Method (ENFG, 1, NotSerialized)
{
Acquire (MUT0, 0x0FFF)
...
}
doesn't really provide exclusive access to the resource(s) protected
by MUT0, even if acpi_acquire_mutex() returns ACPI_SUCCESS ?
IMO, the use case you are talking about is commonly seen in an operation region access code.
Most likely, we'll prepare a driver own lock, and use it for both driver initiated accesses and AML initiated accesses.
Finally, how can the driver writer know which mutex he should acquire?
AML mutexes should be invisible to the OS (except the global lock).
So I'm really confused by your argument.
Please explain in details - what the resource is.
Thanks
Lv
_______________________________________________
Outch. Really ?
Thanks,
Guenter
-----Original Message-----
From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:13 AM
To: Moore, Robert <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx>; Zheng, Lv
<lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx>; Wysocki, Rafael J <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>;
Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [PATCH] ACPICA: Export mutex functions
Mutex functions may be needed by drivers. Examples are accesses to
Super-IO SIO registers (0x2e/0x2f or 0x4e/0x4f) or Super-IO
environmental monitor registers, both which may also be accessed through
DSDT.
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/acpica/utxfmutex.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/utxfmutex.c
b/drivers/acpi/acpica/utxfmutex.c index c016211c35ae..5d20581f4b2f
100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/utxfmutex.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/utxfmutex.c
@@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ acpi_acquire_mutex(acpi_handle handle, acpi_string
pathname, u16 timeout)
status = acpi_os_acquire_mutex(mutex_obj->mutex.os_mutex, timeout);
return (status);
}
+ACPI_EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_acquire_mutex)
/***********************************************************************
********
*
@@ -185,3 +186,4 @@ acpi_status acpi_release_mutex(acpi_handle handle,
acpi_string pathname)
acpi_os_release_mutex(mutex_obj->mutex.os_mutex);
return (AE_OK);
}
+ACPI_EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_release_mutex)
--
2.7.4
Devel mailing list
Devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.acpica.org/mailman/listinfo/devel