Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Moore, Robert > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 3:28 AM > To: 'Guenter Roeck' <[email protected]>; Zheng, Lv <[email protected]> > Cc: Wysocki, Rafael J <[email protected]>; 'Len Brown' > <[email protected]>; 'linux- > [email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' > <[email protected]>; 'linux- > [email protected]' <[email protected]>; Box, David E > <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPICA: Export mutex functions > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Moore, Robert > > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 10:13 AM > > To: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>; Zheng, Lv <[email protected]> > > Cc: Wysocki, Rafael J <[email protected]>; Len Brown > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > > [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPICA: Export mutex functions > > > > There is a model for the drivers to directly acquire an AML mutex > > object. That is why the acquire/release public interfaces were added to > > ACPICA. > > > > I forget all of the details, but the model was developed with MS and > > others during the ACPI 6.0 timeframe. > > > > > [Moore, Robert] > > > Here is the case where the OS may need to directly acquire an AML mutex: > > From the ACPI spec: > > 19.6.2 Acquire (Acquire a Mutex) > > Note: For Mutex objects referenced by a _DLM object, the host OS may also > contend for ownership. > > > > > Other than this case, the OS/drivers should never need to directly acquire an > AML mutex.
That sounds reasonable but the driver might invoke an ACPICA API accessing the _DLM returned mutexes. Thanks and best regards Lv
