From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH] SERIAL: discover PNP ports before PCI, etc Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:49:22 -0700 Message-ID: <1108057762.29578.29.camel@eeyore> References: <1107979967.27371.42.camel@eeyore> <20050210021652.GA594@neo.rr.com> <1108053798.29578.12.camel@eeyore> <20050210173725.GA380@neo.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from atlrel7.hp.com ([156.153.255.213]:2284 "EHLO atlrel7.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262175AbVBJRta (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:49:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20050210173725.GA380@neo.rr.com> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Adam Belay Cc: rmk+serial@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, shaohua.li@intel.com On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 12:37 -0500, Adam Belay wrote: > > Wouldn't it be a bug if PNP described a resource that can be > > discovered by standard PCI discovery? > > Maybe. It's usually one of these: > > pnp: 00:09: ioport range 0x4d0-0x4d1 has been reserved > pnp: 00:09: ioport range 0xcf8-0xcff could not be reserved > pnp: 00:0b: ioport range 0x800-0x87f has been reserved > > The "could not be reserved" was touched by pci. From memory, I think > it's the pci configuration range. Right. 0xcf8-0xcff is reserved in pci_direct_init(), which is part of the arch PCI core, not part of a driver. So I don't think the 8250 PCI/PNP order should make a difference for this particular range (the arch PCI init happens long before either 8250 PCI or PNP claim). > > I think we should move PNP before PCI and fix whatever resource > > problems crop up. > > We could always add this change to -mm and see what effect it has. Let me > know if you still think this makes sense. Yeah, I think that's Russell's plan, which I think is the right one.