On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 12:37 -0500, Adam Belay wrote: > > Wouldn't it be a bug if PNP described a resource that can be > > discovered by standard PCI discovery? > > Maybe. It's usually one of these: > > pnp: 00:09: ioport range 0x4d0-0x4d1 has been reserved > pnp: 00:09: ioport range 0xcf8-0xcff could not be reserved > pnp: 00:0b: ioport range 0x800-0x87f has been reserved > > The "could not be reserved" was touched by pci. From memory, I think > it's the pci configuration range.
Right. 0xcf8-0xcff is reserved in pci_direct_init(), which is part of the arch PCI core, not part of a driver. So I don't think the 8250 PCI/PNP order should make a difference for this particular range (the arch PCI init happens long before either 8250 PCI or PNP claim). > > I think we should move PNP before PCI and fix whatever resource > > problems crop up. > > We could always add this change to -mm and see what effect it has. Let me > know if you still think this makes sense. Yeah, I think that's Russell's plan, which I think is the right one. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
