On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 18:04 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 01:43 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, August 02, 2013 03:46:15 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 23:43 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: : > > > I think it fails with -EINVAL at the place with dev_warn(dev, "ACPI > > > handle is already set\n"). When two ACPI memory objects associate with > > > a same memory block, the bind procedure of the 2nd ACPI memory object > > > sees that ACPI_HANDLE(dev) is already set to the 1st ACPI memory object. > > > > That sound's plausible, but I wonder how we can fix that? > > > > There's no way for a single physical device to have two different ACPI > > "companions". It looks like the memory blocks should be 64 M each in that > > case. Or we need to create two child devices for each memory block and > > associate each of them with an ACPI object. That would lead to complications > > in the user space interface, though. > > Right. Even bigger issue is that I do not think __add_pages() and > __remove_pages() can add / delete a memory chunk that is less than > 128MB. 128MB is the granularity of them. So, we may just have to fail > this case gracefully. FYI: I have submitted the patch blow to close this part of the issue... https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/8/396 Thanks, -Toshi -- 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
