From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] PNP: don't check for conflicts with bridge windows Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 09:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20100503164647.308.86063.stgit@bob.kio> <20100503164721.308.11075.stgit@bob.kio> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53766 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750933Ab0ECQyg (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 12:54:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100503164721.308.11075.stgit@bob.kio> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Kysilka , Adam Belay , Jaroslav Kysela 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