On Mon, 3 May 2010, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> if (tres->flags & IORESOURCE_IO) {
> if (cannot_compare(tres->flags))
> continue;
> + if (tres->flags & IORESOURCE_WINDOW)
> + continue;
> tport = &tres->start;
> tend = &tres->end;
> if (ranged_conflict(port, end, tport, tend))
> @@ -271,6 +273,8 @@ int pnp_check_mem(struct pnp_dev *dev, struct resource *res)
> if (tres->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) {
> if (cannot_compare(tres->flags))
> continue;
> + if (tres->flags & IORESOURCE_WINDOW)
> + continue;
Hmm. Looking at the patch, I am wondering if it wouldn't make _more_ sense
to instead say that you never mix IORESOURCE_WINDOW with
IORESOURCE_IO/MEM? That would make the above patch unnecessary, since it
would never trigger the test for IORESOURCE_IO/MEM in the first place.
A resource window is a window - it's not the resource itself. It's not IO
or MEM - that could/should be an attribute of what resource _tree_ the
window is linked into, not the resource itself.
Hmm?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
