linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] platform: Print the resource range if device failed to claim
@ 2016-12-21  9:24 Chen Yu
  2016-12-22  1:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chen Yu @ 2016-12-21  9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Len Brown, Rafael J. Wysocki, Rui Zhang, Chen Yu

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@kernel.org>
Reported-by: Wendy Wang <wendy.wang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
---
 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);
 			ret = -EBUSY;
 			goto failed;
 		}
-- 
2.7.4

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] platform: Print the resource range if device failed to claim
  2016-12-21  9:24 [PATCH] platform: Print the resource range if device failed to claim Chen Yu
@ 2016-12-22  1:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  2016-12-22  3:32   ` Chen Yu
  2016-12-22  9:18   ` Mika Westerberg
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-12-22  1:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chen Yu
  Cc: linux-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Len Brown, Rui Zhang, Linux ACPI

[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@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Wendy Wang <wendy.wang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> ---
>  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?

>  			ret = -EBUSY;
>  			goto failed;
>  		}
> 

Thanks,
Rafael

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] platform: Print the resource range if device failed to claim
  2016-12-22  1:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2016-12-22  3:32   ` Chen Yu
  2016-12-22  9:18   ` Mika Westerberg
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chen Yu @ 2016-12-22  3:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rafael J. Wysocki
  Cc: linux-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Len Brown, Rui Zhang, Linux ACPI

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@kernel.org>
> > Reported-by: Wendy Wang <wendy.wang@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] platform: Print the resource range if device failed to claim
  2016-12-22  1:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  2016-12-22  3:32   ` Chen Yu
@ 2016-12-22  9:18   ` Mika Westerberg
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mika Westerberg @ 2016-12-22  9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rafael J. Wysocki
  Cc: Chen Yu, linux-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Len Brown, Rui Zhang,
	Linux ACPI

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@kernel.org>
> > Reported-by: Wendy Wang <wendy.wang@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  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?

It may still be useful. For example some BIOSes fill MMIO resources
based on variables in memory in which case the resource in DSDT is
filled with zeroes when disassembled. With the number you can find out
the right MMIO resource.

Either way, this is a good change. I had it on my list as well but never
got a chance to write a patch.

Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2016-12-22  9:18 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-12-21  9:24 [PATCH] platform: Print the resource range if device failed to claim Chen Yu
2016-12-22  1:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-12-22  3:32   ` Chen Yu
2016-12-22  9:18   ` Mika Westerberg

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).