From owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Sat Jul 13 04:51:44 2002
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) id g6CJpiW44327;
	Sat, 13 Jul 2002 04:51:44 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from pallas.or.intel.com (pallas.or.intel.com [134.134.214.21])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) with ESMTP/inet id g6CJpZn44321;
	Sat, 13 Jul 2002 04:51:36 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from andrew.grover@intel.com)
Received: from orsmsxvs040.jf.intel.com (orsmsxvs040.jf.intel.com [192.168.65.206])
	by pallas.or.intel.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/d: solo.mc,v 1.42 2002/05/23 22:21:11 root Exp $) with SMTP id g6CJpTL00460;
	Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:51:30 GMT
Received: from orsmsx26.jf.intel.com ([192.168.65.26])
 by orsmsxvs040.jf.intel.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.11) with SMTP id M2002071212515303288
 ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:51:53 -0700
Received: by orsmsx26.jf.intel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <3Y0LAXYM>; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:51:29 -0700
Message-ID: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C02AB7FA0@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com>
From: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
To: "'John Baldwin'" <jhb@freebsd.org>, acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Cc: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:51:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+020713
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1679
Subject: [acpi-jp 1679] RE: Intel's acpi
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
X-Originator: andrew.grover@intel.com

> From: John Baldwin [mailto:jhb@FreeBSD.org] 
> > The ACPI Global Lock is a hardware mutex between the ACPI 
> BIOS and the OS.
> > It cannot be "simulated" with a kernel mutex.
> 
> Oh, ok. :)  Perhaps our atomic operations API can be used to 
> make the code
> a bit more readable and possibly not require it to be MD.

Possibly...but please do read section 5.2.9.1 of the ACPI 2.0 spec. There
are some interesting gotchas like a "pending bit", which may preclude the
use of more generic locking code.

Regards -- Andy
