On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 12:22:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > If acpi_dev_get_resources() returns overlapping I/O or memory resources, > the subsequent registration of a platform device will fail with -EBUSY > due to a resource conflict. This is reported to happen on Acer Aspire > ES1-572 [1]. > > Avoid that by adjusting resources returned by acpi_dev_get_resources() > to eliminate partial overlaps between them. > > This has not been regarded as necessary before because putting > overlapping resources into the _CRS of one device is really pointless, > but now that the issue has been reported to actually happen in the > field, it needs to be done.
... > * Use resource_union() and adjust code and comment (Andy) Thanks, LGTM now, Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > +static unsigned int acpi_platform_adjust_resources(struct acpi_device *adev, > + struct resource *new_res, > + struct resource *resources, > + unsigned int count) > +{ > + unsigned int i; > + > + if (!(new_res->flags & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM))) Can also be if (!(resource_type(new_res) & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM))) > + return count; > + > + for (i = 0; i < count; ) { > + struct resource *res = &resources[i]; > + if (resource_type(new_res) != resource_type(res) || > + !resource_union(new_res, res, new_res)) { Wondering why we don't have the resource type checks in resource_overlaps(), but we have in resource_contains(). Ilpo, do you know? > + i++; > + continue; > + } > + > + dev_info(&adev->dev, "%pR expanded to avoid overlap\n", > new_res); > + /* > + * Eliminate the previously processed resource that overlapped > + * with the new one because it is not necessary any more. > + */ > + memmove(res, res + 1, (--count - i) * sizeof(*res)); > + } > + > + return count; > +} -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
