> The message changes like this:
>
> -PCI: Failed to allocate to allocate 0x0-0x3fff from PCI IO for PCI Bus 0000:00
> +pci_root PNP0A03:01: can't allocate [io 0x0000-0x3fff]
>
> I don't think changing "PCI IO" to "io" is really a problem. In fact,
> strictly speaking, "PCI IO" is the wrong name for ioport_resource --
> we're talking about a host bridge, and the upstream side is not PCI
> at all.
>
> However, I do think it would be more useful to mention the fact that
> we failed to allocate a *window*, e.g.,
>
> pci_root PNP0A03:00: can't allocate host bridge window [io 0x0000-0x3fff]
>
> I did consider keeping the PCI bus ("0000:00"), but I decided we
> already have that information here:
>
> ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [PCI0] (0000:00)
>
> and it doesn't seem worthwhile to me to repeat the bus number in all
> the host bridge-related messages. Right now, there's nothing to tie
> the PCI0 to the PNP0A03:00 (and "PCI0" shouldn't be exposed to users
> anyway), but someday when I finally convince Len to use dev_printk
> in ACPI, it could look something like this:
>
> pci_root PNP0A03:00: PCI host bridge to pci_bus 0000:00
The last time we looked at using dev_printk() in ACPI,
it looked like the leading ACPI: would go away, and the
concern was that would hinder, rather than help, people
in reporting issues to the right place.
I have no problem with using dev_printk() where it makes sense,
but only if it makes the message more useful rather than
less useful.
BTW. I like the consistency provided by the series at hand.
I assume that it will go through Jesse's, and for that,
consider the relevant bits...
Acked-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>
cheers,
-Len
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
