Re: Linux 2.6.26-rc5

[Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>]

On Thursday 05 June 2008 08:54:24 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Alejandro Riveira Fernández wrote:
> >
> >  I got this on my dmesg; is this expected/harmaless?
> >  (btw The wireless driver oops that i reported is gone as it is the 
> >  bluetooth one ;)
> > 
> ..
> > [    0.233795] system 00:08: iomem range 0x0-0x0 could not be reserved
> > [    0.233795] system 00:08: iomem range 0x0-0x0 could not be reserved
> .. repeated a lot ..
> 
> It's harmless but obviously irritating. The PnP resource manager changes 
> need a few cleanups still - it's getting confused about IORESOURCE_UNSET 
> vs IORESOURCE_DISABLED.

Here's the patch.  I reproduced the problem and verified that this
fixes it.

This should not add conflicts with any of the PNP patches that are
currently in -mm (let me know if it does, of course).  After all
those patches, IORESOURCE_UNSET is never set by PNP, but it should
still be harmless to check for it.



PNP: skip UNSET MEM resources as well as DISABLED ones

We don't need to reserve "unset" resources.  Trying to reserve
them results in messages like this, which are ugly but harmless:

    system 00:08: iomem range 0x0-0x0 could not be reserved

Future PNP patches will remove use of IORESOURCE_UNSET, but
we still need it for now.

Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>

Index: work11/drivers/pnp/system.c
===================================================================
--- work11.orig/drivers/pnp/system.c	2008-06-05 09:46:33.000000000 -0600
+++ work11/drivers/pnp/system.c	2008-06-05 09:48:09.000000000 -0600
@@ -81,7 +81,8 @@ static void reserve_resources_of_dev(str
 	}
 
 	for (i = 0; (res = pnp_get_resource(dev, IORESOURCE_MEM, i)); i++) {
-		if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED)
+		if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_UNSET ||
+		    res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED)
 			continue;
 
 		reserve_range(dev, res->start, res->end, 0);