* Re: [PATCH v3] ACPI: scan: Avoid registering platform devices with resource overlaps
2026-08-07 10:22 [PATCH v3] ACPI: scan: Avoid registering platform devices with resource overlaps Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2026-08-07 12:57 ` Paul Menzel
2026-08-07 13:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-08-08 20:04 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-08-10 15:35 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paul Menzel @ 2026-08-07 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: linux-acpi, LKML, Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg, julien82453,
jarkko, linux-integrity
Dear Rafael,
Thank you for the patch.
Am 07.08.26 um 12:22 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> If acpi_dev_get_resources() returns overlapping I/O or memory resources,
> the subsequent registration of a platform device will fail with -EBUSY
> due to a resource conflict. This is reported to happen on Acer Aspire
> ES1-572 [1].
Reading the diff, it might be useful to paste the log warning already here:
tpm_crb_acpi MSFT0101:00: [Firmware Bug]: Bad ACPI memory layout
> Avoid that by adjusting resources returned by acpi_dev_get_resources()
> to eliminate partial overlaps between them.
>
> This has not been regarded as necessary before because putting
> overlapping resources into the _CRS of one device is really pointless,
> but now that the issue has been reported to actually happen in the
> field, it needs to be done.
>
> Fixes: ab06eb920401 ("ACPI: scan: Register platform devices for fixed event buttons")
> Reported-by: Julien <julien82453@gmail.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAJOGg3z6LJPDsdPNBxajgy8_wQxfhYBRxe4EiurZf3kPU5A5Bw@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
> Cc: All applicable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>
> v2 -> v3:
> * Use resource_union() and adjust code and comment (Andy)
> * Include ioport.h directly
>
> v1 -> v2:
> * Add the expanded resource instead of and not in addition to the other
> overlapping one (Sashiko)
>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> #include <linux/bits.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/ioport.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> @@ -71,6 +72,36 @@ static struct notifier_block acpi_platfo
> .notifier_call = acpi_platform_device_remove_notify,
> };
>
> +static unsigned int acpi_platform_adjust_resources(struct acpi_device *adev,
> + struct resource *new_res,
> + struct resource *resources,
> + unsigned int count)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + if (!(new_res->flags & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM)))
> + return count;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < count; ) {
> + struct resource *res = &resources[i];
> +
> + if (resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) ||
> + !resource_union(new_res, res, new_res)) {
> + i++;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + dev_info(&adev->dev, "%pR expanded to avoid overlap\n", new_res);
Maybe more normal user understandable:
%pR expanded to fit all resources to avoid overlap
For the record, Julian reported that now the lines below are logged:
MSFT0101:00: [mem 0xfed40000-0xfed4103f] expanded to avoid overlap
tpm_crb_acpi MSFT0101:00: [Firmware Bug]: Bad ACPI memory layout
> + /*
> + * Eliminate the previously processed resource that overlapped
> + * with the new one because it is not necessary any more.
> + */
> + memmove(res, res + 1, (--count - i) * sizeof(*res));
> + }
> +
> + return count;
> +}
> +
> static void acpi_platform_fill_resource(struct acpi_device *adev,
> const struct resource *src, struct resource *dest)
> {
> @@ -151,10 +182,14 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_plat
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> }
> count = 0;
> - list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node)
> + list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node) {
> + count = acpi_platform_adjust_resources(adev,
> + rentry->res,
> + resources,
> + count);
> acpi_platform_fill_resource(adev, rentry->res,
> &resources[count++]);
> -
> + }
> acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&resource_list);
> }
> }
Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Kind regards,
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3] ACPI: scan: Avoid registering platform devices with resource overlaps
2026-08-07 12:57 ` Paul Menzel
@ 2026-08-07 13:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) @ 2026-08-07 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Menzel
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-acpi, LKML, Andy Shevchenko,
Mika Westerberg, julien82453, jarkko, linux-integrity
On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 2:57 PM Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Rafael,
>
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> Am 07.08.26 um 12:22 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > If acpi_dev_get_resources() returns overlapping I/O or memory resources,
> > the subsequent registration of a platform device will fail with -EBUSY
> > due to a resource conflict. This is reported to happen on Acer Aspire
> > ES1-572 [1].
>
> Reading the diff, it might be useful to paste the log warning already here:
>
> tpm_crb_acpi MSFT0101:00: [Firmware Bug]: Bad ACPI memory layout
It's there in the message pointed to by the Closes: tag though.
> > Avoid that by adjusting resources returned by acpi_dev_get_resources()
> > to eliminate partial overlaps between them.
> >
> > This has not been regarded as necessary before because putting
> > overlapping resources into the _CRS of one device is really pointless,
> > but now that the issue has been reported to actually happen in the
> > field, it needs to be done.
> >
> > Fixes: ab06eb920401 ("ACPI: scan: Register platform devices for fixed event buttons")
> > Reported-by: Julien <julien82453@gmail.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAJOGg3z6LJPDsdPNBxajgy8_wQxfhYBRxe4EiurZf3kPU5A5Bw@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
> > Cc: All applicable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > ---
> >
> > v2 -> v3:
> > * Use resource_union() and adjust code and comment (Andy)
> > * Include ioport.h directly
> >
> > v1 -> v2:
> > * Add the expanded resource instead of and not in addition to the other
> > overlapping one (Sashiko)
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > #include <linux/bits.h>
> > #include <linux/device.h>
> > #include <linux/err.h>
> > +#include <linux/ioport.h>
> > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> > @@ -71,6 +72,36 @@ static struct notifier_block acpi_platfo
> > .notifier_call = acpi_platform_device_remove_notify,
> > };
> >
> > +static unsigned int acpi_platform_adjust_resources(struct acpi_device *adev,
> > + struct resource *new_res,
> > + struct resource *resources,
> > + unsigned int count)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int i;
> > +
> > + if (!(new_res->flags & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM)))
> > + return count;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < count; ) {
> > + struct resource *res = &resources[i];
> > +
> > + if (resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) ||
> > + !resource_union(new_res, res, new_res)) {
> > + i++;
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > + dev_info(&adev->dev, "%pR expanded to avoid overlap\n", new_res);
>
> Maybe more normal user understandable:
>
> %pR expanded to fit all resources to avoid overlap
What about "expanded due to overlap"? I'd prefer it to be shorter
because the resource printout takes up some message space already.
> For the record, Julian reported that now the lines below are logged:
>
> MSFT0101:00: [mem 0xfed40000-0xfed4103f] expanded to avoid overlap
> tpm_crb_acpi MSFT0101:00: [Firmware Bug]: Bad ACPI memory layout
Right, and the second one comes from the driver binding to the device.
> > + /*
> > + * Eliminate the previously processed resource that overlapped
> > + * with the new one because it is not necessary any more.
> > + */
> > + memmove(res, res + 1, (--count - i) * sizeof(*res));
> > + }
> > +
> > + return count;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void acpi_platform_fill_resource(struct acpi_device *adev,
> > const struct resource *src, struct resource *dest)
> > {
> > @@ -151,10 +182,14 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_plat
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > }
> > count = 0;
> > - list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node)
> > + list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node) {
> > + count = acpi_platform_adjust_resources(adev,
> > + rentry->res,
> > + resources,
> > + count);
> > acpi_platform_fill_resource(adev, rentry->res,
> > &resources[count++]);
> > -
> > + }
> > acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&resource_list);
> > }
> > }
>
> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Thank you!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] ACPI: scan: Avoid registering platform devices with resource overlaps
2026-08-07 10:22 [PATCH v3] ACPI: scan: Avoid registering platform devices with resource overlaps Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-08-07 12:57 ` Paul Menzel
@ 2026-08-08 20:04 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-08-10 10:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-08-10 15:35 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2026-08-08 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki, Ilpo Järvinen
Cc: Linux ACPI, LKML, Mika Westerberg, Julien, jarkko,
linux-integrity
On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 12:22:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> If acpi_dev_get_resources() returns overlapping I/O or memory resources,
> the subsequent registration of a platform device will fail with -EBUSY
> due to a resource conflict. This is reported to happen on Acer Aspire
> ES1-572 [1].
>
> Avoid that by adjusting resources returned by acpi_dev_get_resources()
> to eliminate partial overlaps between them.
>
> This has not been regarded as necessary before because putting
> overlapping resources into the _CRS of one device is really pointless,
> but now that the issue has been reported to actually happen in the
> field, it needs to be done.
...
> * Use resource_union() and adjust code and comment (Andy)
Thanks, LGTM now,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> +static unsigned int acpi_platform_adjust_resources(struct acpi_device *adev,
> + struct resource *new_res,
> + struct resource *resources,
> + unsigned int count)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + if (!(new_res->flags & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM)))
Can also be
if (!(resource_type(new_res) & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM)))
> + return count;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < count; ) {
> + struct resource *res = &resources[i];
> + if (resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) ||
> + !resource_union(new_res, res, new_res)) {
Wondering why we don't have the resource type checks in resource_overlaps(),
but we have in resource_contains(). Ilpo, do you know?
> + i++;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + dev_info(&adev->dev, "%pR expanded to avoid overlap\n", new_res);
> + /*
> + * Eliminate the previously processed resource that overlapped
> + * with the new one because it is not necessary any more.
> + */
> + memmove(res, res + 1, (--count - i) * sizeof(*res));
> + }
> +
> + return count;
> +}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3] ACPI: scan: Avoid registering platform devices with resource overlaps
2026-08-08 20:04 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2026-08-10 10:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) @ 2026-08-10 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Ilpo Järvinen, Linux ACPI, LKML,
Mika Westerberg, Julien, jarkko, linux-integrity
On Sat, Aug 8, 2026 at 10:04 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 12:22:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > If acpi_dev_get_resources() returns overlapping I/O or memory resources,
> > the subsequent registration of a platform device will fail with -EBUSY
> > due to a resource conflict. This is reported to happen on Acer Aspire
> > ES1-572 [1].
> >
> > Avoid that by adjusting resources returned by acpi_dev_get_resources()
> > to eliminate partial overlaps between them.
> >
> > This has not been regarded as necessary before because putting
> > overlapping resources into the _CRS of one device is really pointless,
> > but now that the issue has been reported to actually happen in the
> > field, it needs to be done.
>
> ...
>
> > * Use resource_union() and adjust code and comment (Andy)
>
> Thanks, LGTM now,
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Thanks!
> > +static unsigned int acpi_platform_adjust_resources(struct acpi_device *adev,
> > + struct resource *new_res,
> > + struct resource *resources,
> > + unsigned int count)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int i;
> > +
> > + if (!(new_res->flags & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM)))
>
> Can also be
>
> if (!(resource_type(new_res) & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM)))
It could, but it would add a redundant "bitwise and" with the type mask.
I guess the compiler can be expected to optimize it away, but if it
doesn't get optimized away, it's just pure useless overhead.
> > + return count;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < count; ) {
> > + struct resource *res = &resources[i];
>
> > + if (resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) ||
> > + !resource_union(new_res, res, new_res)) {
>
> Wondering why we don't have the resource type checks in resource_overlaps(),
Yeah, it looks like a missing piece.
> but we have in resource_contains(). Ilpo, do you know?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] ACPI: scan: Avoid registering platform devices with resource overlaps
2026-08-07 10:22 [PATCH v3] ACPI: scan: Avoid registering platform devices with resource overlaps Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-08-07 12:57 ` Paul Menzel
2026-08-08 20:04 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2026-08-10 15:35 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2026-08-10 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Linux ACPI, LKML, Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg, Julien,
linux-integrity
On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 12:22:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> If acpi_dev_get_resources() returns overlapping I/O or memory resources,
> the subsequent registration of a platform device will fail with -EBUSY
> due to a resource conflict. This is reported to happen on Acer Aspire
> ES1-572 [1].
>
> Avoid that by adjusting resources returned by acpi_dev_get_resources()
> to eliminate partial overlaps between them.
>
> This has not been regarded as necessary before because putting
> overlapping resources into the _CRS of one device is really pointless,
> but now that the issue has been reported to actually happen in the
> field, it needs to be done.
>
> Fixes: ab06eb920401 ("ACPI: scan: Register platform devices for fixed event buttons")
> Reported-by: Julien <julien82453@gmail.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAJOGg3z6LJPDsdPNBxajgy8_wQxfhYBRxe4EiurZf3kPU5A5Bw@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
> Cc: All applicable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>
> v2 -> v3:
> * Use resource_union() and adjust code and comment (Andy)
> * Include ioport.h directly
>
> v1 -> v2:
> * Add the expanded resource instead of and not in addition to the other
> overlapping one (Sashiko)
>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> #include <linux/bits.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/ioport.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> @@ -71,6 +72,36 @@ static struct notifier_block acpi_platfo
> .notifier_call = acpi_platform_device_remove_notify,
> };
>
> +static unsigned int acpi_platform_adjust_resources(struct acpi_device *adev,
> + struct resource *new_res,
> + struct resource *resources,
> + unsigned int count)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + if (!(new_res->flags & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM)))
> + return count;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < count; ) {
> + struct resource *res = &resources[i];
> +
> + if (resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) ||
> + !resource_union(new_res, res, new_res)) {
> + i++;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + dev_info(&adev->dev, "%pR expanded to avoid overlap\n", new_res);
> + /*
> + * Eliminate the previously processed resource that overlapped
> + * with the new one because it is not necessary any more.
> + */
> + memmove(res, res + 1, (--count - i) * sizeof(*res));
> + }
> +
> + return count;
> +}
> +
> static void acpi_platform_fill_resource(struct acpi_device *adev,
> const struct resource *src, struct resource *dest)
> {
> @@ -151,10 +182,14 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_plat
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> }
> count = 0;
> - list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node)
> + list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node) {
> + count = acpi_platform_adjust_resources(adev,
> + rentry->res,
> + resources,
> + count);
> acpi_platform_fill_resource(adev, rentry->res,
> &resources[count++]);
> -
> + }
> acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&resource_list);
> }
> }
>
>
>
Applied to my tree I'll just run some tests.
BR, Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread