From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] x86/PCI: print resources consistently with %pRt Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20091006213259.4272.68068.stgit@bob.kio> <20091006213349.4272.65914.stgit@bob.kio> <86802c440910071143y7ba8b0f8y9efff738eba9d30b@mail.gmail.com> <200910071315.16250.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from vms173015pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.15]:56981 "EHLO vms173015pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754870AbZJIVOy (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:14:54 -0400 In-reply-to: <200910071315.16250.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Yinghai Lu , Jesse Barnes , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > The message changes like this: > > -PCI: Failed to allocate to allocate 0x0-0x3fff from PCI IO for PCI Bus 0000:00 > +pci_root PNP0A03:01: can't allocate [io 0x0000-0x3fff] > > I don't think changing "PCI IO" to "io" is really a problem. In fact, > strictly speaking, "PCI IO" is the wrong name for ioport_resource -- > we're talking about a host bridge, and the upstream side is not PCI > at all. > > However, I do think it would be more useful to mention the fact that > we failed to allocate a *window*, e.g., > > pci_root PNP0A03:00: can't allocate host bridge window [io 0x0000-0x3fff] > > I did consider keeping the PCI bus ("0000:00"), but I decided we > already have that information here: > > ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [PCI0] (0000:00) > > and it doesn't seem worthwhile to me to repeat the bus number in all > the host bridge-related messages. Right now, there's nothing to tie > the PCI0 to the PNP0A03:00 (and "PCI0" shouldn't be exposed to users > anyway), but someday when I finally convince Len to use dev_printk > in ACPI, it could look something like this: > > pci_root PNP0A03:00: PCI host bridge to pci_bus 0000:00 The last time we looked at using dev_printk() in ACPI, it looked like the leading ACPI: would go away, and the concern was that would hinder, rather than help, people in reporting issues to the right place. I have no problem with using dev_printk() where it makes sense, but only if it makes the message more useful rather than less useful. BTW. I like the consistency provided by the series at hand. I assume that it will go through Jesse's, and for that, consider the relevant bits... Acked-by: Len Brown cheers, -Len