Hi,
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 02:19:22AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> [CC Mika and linux-acpi]
>
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 05:24:55 PM Chen Yu wrote:
> > Sometimes we have the following error message:
> > platform MSFT0101:00: failed to claim resource 1
> > acpi MSFT0101:00: platform device creation failed: -16
> > But there is not enough information to figure out which resource range
> > failed to claim.
> >
> > Thus print the resource range at first-place thus /proc/iomem or
> > ioports should tell us who already claimed this resource, then
> > the driver bug or incorrect resource assignment which is running
> > into this conflict can be diagnosed:
> > platform MSFT0101:00: failed to claim resource 1: [mem 0xfed40000-0xfed40fff]
> > acpi MSFT0101:00: platform device creation failed: -16
> >
> > Suggested-by: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: Wendy Wang <wendy.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/platform.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > index c4af003..22a6430 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > @@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ int platform_device_add(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > }
> >
> > if (p && insert_resource(p, r)) {
> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to claim resource %d\n", i);
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to claim resource %d: %pR\n", i, r);
>
> Do we still need the resource number?
>
Seems we don't need the resource number anymore.
(As platform.c was written earlier than 2005, and the support of %pR was introduced
later in 2008.)
> > ret = -EBUSY;
> > goto failed;
> > }
> >
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
Thanks,
Yu
--
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
