Re: [PATCH] PNP: don't check for conflicts with bridge windows

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 3 May 2010, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>  			if (tres->flags & IORESOURCE_IO) {
>  				if (cannot_compare(tres->flags))
>  					continue;
> +				if (tres->flags & IORESOURCE_WINDOW)
> +					continue;
>  				tport = &tres->start;
>  				tend = &tres->end;
>  				if (ranged_conflict(port, end, tport, tend))
> @@ -271,6 +273,8 @@ int pnp_check_mem(struct pnp_dev *dev, struct resource *res)
>  			if (tres->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) {
>  				if (cannot_compare(tres->flags))
>  					continue;
> +				if (tres->flags & IORESOURCE_WINDOW)
> +					continue;

Hmm. Looking at the patch, I am wondering if it wouldn't make _more_ sense 
to instead say that you never mix IORESOURCE_WINDOW with 
IORESOURCE_IO/MEM? That would make the above patch unnecessary, since it 
would never trigger the test for IORESOURCE_IO/MEM in the first place.

A resource window is a window - it's not the resource itself. It's not IO 
or MEM - that could/should be an attribute of what resource _tree_ the 
window is linked into, not the resource itself.

Hmm?

		Linus