On Saturday 19 January 2008 4:03:39 am Frans Pop wrote:
> Dave Young wrote:
> > I noticed the port number changed to 40 in 2.6.24-rc8, but it's not
> > enough for me still.
>
> Same here, though the extreme noise has gone.
> From /proc/ioports and dmesg it looks like I'm short by either 1, or 3
Dave Young wrote:
> I noticed the port number changed to 40 in 2.6.24-rc8, but it's not
> enough for me still.
Same here, though the extreme noise has gone.
>From /proc/ioports and dmesg it looks like I'm short by either 1, or 3 :-(
Cheers,
FJP
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Dave Young wrote:
I noticed the port number changed to 40 in 2.6.24-rc8, but it's not
enough for me still.
Same here, though the extreme noise has gone.
From /proc/ioports and dmesg it looks like I'm short by either 1, or 3 :-(
Cheers,
FJP
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 16-01-08 09:00, Rene Herman wrote:
On 16-01-08 06:55, Dave Young wrote:
I noticed the port number changed to 40 in 2.6.24-rc8, but it's not
enough for me still.
Yes, that's known. In .23 even more were (silently) ignored though.
Since .24-rc8 you should at least get just 1 warning (per
On 16-01-08 06:55, Dave Young wrote:
I noticed the port number changed to 40 in 2.6.24-rc8, but it's not
enough for me still.
Yes, that's known. In .23 even more were (silently) ignored though. Since
.24-rc8 you should at least get just 1 warning (per resource type) and if
all's well .25
On 16-01-08 06:55, Dave Young wrote:
I noticed the port number changed to 40 in 2.6.24-rc8, but it's not
enough for me still.
Yes, that's known. In .23 even more were (silently) ignored though. Since
.24-rc8 you should at least get just 1 warning (per resource type) and if
all's well .25
On 16-01-08 09:00, Rene Herman wrote:
On 16-01-08 06:55, Dave Young wrote:
I noticed the port number changed to 40 in 2.6.24-rc8, but it's not
enough for me still.
Yes, that's known. In .23 even more were (silently) ignored though.
Since .24-rc8 you should at least get just 1 warning (per
95,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_dmaresource(struct
> pnp_resource_table *res,
> static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_ioresource(struct pnp_resource_table
> *res,
> u64 io, u64 len, int io_decode)
> {
> + static int
,
}
res-port_resource[i].start = io;
res-port_resource[i].end = io + len - 1;
- } else {
+ } else if (!warned++) {
printk(KERN_ERR pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO
resources: %d \n, PNP_MAX_PORT
gt;port_resource[i].start = io;
res->port_resource[i].end = io + len - 1;
- } else {
+ } else if (!warned++) {
printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO "
"reso
Len Brown wrote:
>> > Well, yes, the warning is actually new as well. Previously your kernel
>> > just silently ignored 8 more mem resources than it does now it seems.
>> >
>> > Given that people are hitting these limits, it might make sense to just
>> > do away with the warning for 2.6.24 again
Len Brown wrote:
Well, yes, the warning is actually new as well. Previously your kernel
just silently ignored 8 more mem resources than it does now it seems.
Given that people are hitting these limits, it might make sense to just
do away with the warning for 2.6.24 again while waiting
++) {
printk(KERN_ERR pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO
resources: %d \n, PNP_MAX_PORT);
}
@@ -217,6 +221,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_memresource(struct
pnp_resource_table *res,
u64 mem, u64 len
> > Well, yes, the warning is actually new as well. Previously your kernel
> > just silently ignored 8 more mem resources than it does now it seems.
> >
> > Given that people are hitting these limits, it might make sense to just
> > do away with the warning for 2.6.24 again while waiting for
Well, yes, the warning is actually new as well. Previously your kernel
just silently ignored 8 more mem resources than it does now it seems.
Given that people are hitting these limits, it might make sense to just
do away with the warning for 2.6.24 again while waiting for the dynamic
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:07:28 +0800, Zhao Yakui said:
> The resources of PNP device are obtained by calling the _CRS method.
> Maybe some resources has been reserved. For example: Some system will
> reserve the following resources.
>BIOS-e820: fec0 - fed4 (reserved)
>
report that some resources can't be reserved.
> I do not yet see how the "ioport range" messages increased from 0 to 16
> is explained, but I'm not too worried about that.
>
> > At the same time another problem maybe happens. If the number of
> > resources defined in BI
ote:
> > On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 06:12 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > During boot with v2.6.24-rc6-125-g5356f66 on my Toshiba Satellite A40
> > > laptop, I suddenly get the following message (repeated 22 times!):
> > >pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO res
at 06:12 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
During boot with v2.6.24-rc6-125-g5356f66 on my Toshiba Satellite A40
laptop, I suddenly get the following message (repeated 22 times!):
pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
Last time I tested 2.6.24 on that box was after
.
On Friday 28 December 2007, Zhao Yakui wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 06:12 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
During boot with v2.6.24-rc6-125-g5356f66 on my Toshiba Satellite
A40 laptop, I suddenly get the following message (repeated 22
times!): pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:07:28 +0800, Zhao Yakui said:
The resources of PNP device are obtained by calling the _CRS method.
Maybe some resources has been reserved. For example: Some system will
reserve the following resources.
BIOS-e820: fec0 - fed4 (reserved)
f66 on my Toshiba Satellite A40
> > laptop, I suddenly get the following message (repeated 22 times!):
> >pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
> >
> > Last time I tested 2.6.24 on that box was after the initial merge, but
> > before -rc1. Then those lin
Satellite A40
laptop, I suddenly get the following message (repeated 22 times!):
pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
Last time I tested 2.6.24 on that box was after the initial merge, but
before -rc1. Then those lines were not present.
Looks like the messages
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_MEM12
> > #define PNP_MAX_IRQ2
> > #define PNP_MAX_DMA2
>
> I don't think we can
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_MEM12
#define PNP_MAX_IRQ2
#define PNP_MAX_DMA2
I don't think we can increase
On Monday 03 December 2007 06:15:40 pm Dave Young wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:55:13AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> > > On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Monday 03 December 2007 06:15:40 pm Dave Young wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:55:13AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
For what it is worth
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:55:13AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> > On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
> >
> > > On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
> > >
> > >> For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
>
> > On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
> >
> >> For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
> >> DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
> >>
> >>
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
>
> > On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
> >
> >> For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
> >> DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
> >>
> >>
On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
The message: pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem resources: 12
is displayed
On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
The message: pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem resources: 12
is displayed
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
The message:
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
The message:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:55:13AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
DOES appear
On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
The message: pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem resources: 12
is displayed each time the system is booted with the
For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
The message: pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem resources: 12
is displayed each time the system is booted with the 2.6.24-rc3-git5
kernel but is NOT displayed
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 01:40 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:28 +0800, Zhao Yakui said:
> > Thanks for the acpidump & dmesg.
> > In the acpidump there are so many IO resource definitions in the device
> > of mem2 and the number exceeds the predefined number(24).
>
>
On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
The message: pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem resources: 12
is displayed each time the system is booted with the
For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
The message: pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem resources: 12
is displayed each time the system is booted with the 2.6.24-rc3-git5
kernel but is NOT displayed
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 01:40 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:28 +0800, Zhao Yakui said:
Thanks for the acpidump dmesg.
In the acpidump there are so many IO resource definitions in the device
of mem2 and the number exceeds the predefined number(24).
On a
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:28 +0800, Zhao Yakui said:
> Thanks for the acpidump & dmesg.
> In the acpidump there are so many IO resource definitions in the device
> of mem2 and the number exceeds the predefined number(24).
On a semi-related note, I'm seeing 7 of these at each boot on a Dell
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 03:18 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 29-11-07 10:11, Dave Young wrote:
>
> > The pnpacpi rsparser.c report warnings of:
> > exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
> >
> > dmesg|grep exceeded|wc
> > 66 5943564
>
> Heavens... (added CCs of people who just
On 29-11-07 10:11, Dave Young wrote:
The pnpacpi rsparser.c report warnings of:
exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
dmesg|grep exceeded|wc
66 5943564
Heavens... (added CCs of people who just upped it from 8 -- I suppose the
problem is not new then?)
Rene.
-
To
Hi,
The pnpacpi rsparser.c report warnings of:
exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
dmesg|grep exceeded|wc
66 5943564
Regards
dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Hi,
The pnpacpi rsparser.c report warnings of:
exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
dmesg|grep exceeded|wc
66 5943564
Regards
dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 03:18 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
On 29-11-07 10:11, Dave Young wrote:
The pnpacpi rsparser.c report warnings of:
exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
dmesg|grep exceeded|wc
66 5943564
Heavens... (added CCs of people who just upped it from 8
On 29-11-07 10:11, Dave Young wrote:
The pnpacpi rsparser.c report warnings of:
exceeded the max number of IO resources: 24
dmesg|grep exceeded|wc
66 5943564
Heavens... (added CCs of people who just upped it from 8 -- I suppose the
problem is not new then?)
Rene.
-
To
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:28 +0800, Zhao Yakui said:
Thanks for the acpidump dmesg.
In the acpidump there are so many IO resource definitions in the device
of mem2 and the number exceeds the predefined number(24).
On a semi-related note, I'm seeing 7 of these at each boot on a Dell
49 matches
Mail list logo
