[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47F50FF0.40602@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:12:16 +0200
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
CC: 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 03-04-08 18:43, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 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.
Both PNPBIOS and PNPACPI should be fine it seems:
pnpbios_get_resources()
pnpbios_read_resources_from_node()
pnpbios_parse_allocated_resource_data()
pnpbios_parse_allocated_irqresource()
pnpbios_parse_allocated_dmaresource()
pnpbios_parse_allocated_ioresource()
pnpbios_parse_allocated_memresource()
where the latter do the same scan for the first _UNSET resource as the new
code does. Same thing for ACPI in the path
pnpacpi_get_resources()
pnpacpi_parse_allocated_resource()
pnpacpi_allocated_resource()
pnpacpi_parse_allocated_irqresource()
pnpacpi_parse_allocated_dmaresource()
pnpacpi_parse_allocated_ioresource()
pnpacpi_parse_allocated_memresource()
pnpacpi_parse_allocated_address_space()
pnpacpi_parse_allocated_memresource()
Rene.
--
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