On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 9:40 PM Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 09:00:09PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 7:32 PM Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 03:55:43PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > And below is one to try. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 7 ++++++- > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > > > > @@ -85,7 +85,12 @@ static unsigned int acpi_platform_adjust > > > > for (i = 0; i < count; ) { > > > > struct resource *res = &resources[i]; > > > > > > > > - if (resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) || > > > > + /* > > > > + * Look for overlaps of resources of the same type that > > > > + * would cause resource insertion to fail. > > > > + */ > > > > + if (__resource_contains_unbound(new_res, res) || > > > > + resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) || > > > > !resource_union(new_res, res, new_res)) { > > > > i++; > > > > continue; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does not appear to resolve the probe failure for me. > > > > So can you please try to reverse new_res and res in the > > __resource_contains_unbound() check in the patch and try again? > > Can confirm that > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > index fffdd4f011b2..ea3b2e03ebae 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > @@ -85,7 +85,12 @@ static unsigned int acpi_platform_adjust_resources(struct > acpi_device *adev, > for (i = 0; i < count; ) { > struct resource *res = &resources[i]; > > - if (resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) || > + /* > + * Look for overlaps of resources of the same type that > + * would cause resource insertion to fail. > + */ > + if (__resource_contains_unbound(res, new_res) || > + resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) || > !resource_union(new_res, res, new_res)) { > i++; > continue; > -- > > resolves the probe failure for me.
Great, thanks for testing! I'll send a proper patch tomorrow.
