Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 14:58:39 +0900 From: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> To: msmith@freebsd.org Cc: iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org, takawata@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp, haro@tk.kubota.co.jp, current@freebsd.org, acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Interesting AML bug... recommended workaround? Message-ID: <20001002145839G.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200010012204.e91M4wJ00361@mass.osd.bsdi.com> References: <200010012204.e91M4wJ00361@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> Here's what seems to be an interesting AML or AML parser bug.
>
> OperationRegion(PSRG, SystemMemory, 0x0410, 0x1)
> Field(PSRG, DWordAcc, NoLock, Preserve) {
> , 2,
> PS2E, 1
> }
>
> The field is marked for 32-bit access, but the region is only 1 byte
> wide. What's the correct thing to do here? Expand the region to
> accomodate the field's access requirements? Constrain the access size of
> the field to that of the region?
I thought read 32-bit, update target bits, write back whole 32-bit for
updating. For reading value, read 32-bit and shift & mask bits as well.
I hope I could understand description in Spec 15.2.3.3.1.9; "If desired,
AccessType can be used to force minimum access width."
Thanks
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001002145839G.iwasaki>