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_MEM 12 > > #define PNP_MAX_IRQ 2 > > #define PNP_MAX_DMA 2 > > I don't think we can increase PNP_MAX_PORT to 128. Only one or two > devices need that many, so just bumping the max wastes a LOT of space. > A struct resource is seven longs, so on a 32-bit system with sixteen > PNP devices, we'd be wasting (128-24)*7*4*16 = almost 47Kbytes. > > In hindsight, I should not have removed drivers/acpi/motherboard.c > until we had dynamic PNP resource tables. We could revert that > change [1], but the driver's been gone since 2.6.21, so I don't > think it's that urgent. It's just that we used to silently ignore > resources past the limits, and in -mm, we now print a KERN_ERR message. > > So I think we should either remove the message altogether (so we're > exactly like 2.6.23 in this regard), or at least tone it down to > a KERN_WARN or something. > > And we need to get Thomas' dynamic patch into -mm ASAP :-)
*ping*! :) My laptop still hits the PNP_MAX_MEM=12 warning in -rc5-mm1 - what's the status on Thomas's patch? No biggie - I just want to make sure it hasn't been dropped through the cracks someplace....
pgp2sVG5PwXQr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
