[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804031043.43068.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:43:41 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Adam Belay <ambx1@....rr.com>,
Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Matthieu Castet <castet.matthieu@...e.fr>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/37] PNP resource_table cleanups, v2
On Thursday 03 April 2008 09:54:51 am Rene Herman wrote:
> However, now that you made me look closer and in context -- there's actually
> a possibly somewhat serious problem here.
>
> isapnp_read_resources() stores the resources as read from the hardware at
> the index in the table that matches the actual index in the hardware and
> isapnp_set_resources() stores them back into those same hardware indices.
>
> Now by using pnp_add_foo_resource() which just scans for the first _UNSET
> resource, the resources might not end up in the same linear position in
> table/list if intermediate resources were unset in hardware (!ret). A
> subsequent isapnp_set_resources() would them restore the value to the wrong
> hardware index.
>
> The IORESOURCE_ flags currently reserve too few bits (IORESOURCE_BITS, 8)
> to be able to store the hardware index: IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOURCE_DMA
> need 2 and 1 respectively and there are 1 and 0 available respectively. It's
> ofcourse possible to hijack a few more bits in IORESOURCE_ flags but you're
> turning this into a list. I suppose the idea is to make it a simple list of
> struct resource, but perhaps a resource-private "driver_data" sort of field
> comes in handy for more than this already? Swiping more of IORESOURCE_ is a
> bit ugly...
>
> In any case, I missed this, but ISAPnP is still (at least in principle)
> broken with the current set therefore.
Hmm... you're right. And I think it could bite PNPBIOS and PNPACPI
as well -- they don't read/write hardware registers directly, but the
firmware still depends on preserving the resource order. I'll have to
ponder that for a while.
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists