On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:39:04 MST, Bjorn Helgaas said: > > -#define PNP_MAX_PORT 24 > > +#define PNP_MAX_PORT 128 > > #define PNP_MAX_MEM 12 > > #define PNP_MAX_IRQ 2 > > #define PNP_MAX_DMA 2 > > I don't think we can increase PNP_MAX_PORT to 128. Only one or two > devices need that many, so just bumping the max wastes a LOT of space. > A struct resource is seven longs, so on a 32-bit system with sixteen > PNP devices, we'd be wasting (128-24)*7*4*16 = almost 47Kbytes. > > In hindsight, I should not have removed drivers/acpi/motherboard.c > until we had dynamic PNP resource tables. We could revert that > change [1], but the driver's been gone since 2.6.21, so I don't > think it's that urgent. It's just that we used to silently ignore > resources past the limits, and in -mm, we now print a KERN_ERR message. > > So I think we should either remove the message altogether (so we're > exactly like 2.6.23 in this regard), or at least tone it down to > a KERN_WARN or something. > > And we need to get Thomas' dynamic patch into -mm ASAP :-) *ping*! :) My laptop still hits the PNP_MAX_MEM=12 warning in -rc5-mm1 - what's the status on Thomas's patch? No biggie - I just want to make sure it hasn't been dropped through the cracks someplace....
Attachment:
pgpR2Nc42pWqj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources
- From: Chris Holvenstot <[email protected]>
- Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources
- From: Shaohua Li <[email protected]>
- Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources
- From: Dave Young <[email protected]>
- Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources
- From: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
- re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources
- Prev by Date: Re: [ipw3945-devel] 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 -- INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected -- pm-suspend/5800 is trying to acquire lock
- Next by Date: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6
- Previous by thread: Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources
- Next by thread: does /proc/sys/kernel/modprobe actually do anything?
- Index(es):