On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 5:35 PM Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 12:22:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> > > > > 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. > > > > Fixes: ab06eb920401 ("ACPI: scan: Register platform devices for fixed event > > buttons") > > Reported-by: Julien <[email protected]> > > Closes: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/cajogg3z6ljpdsdpnbxajgy8_wqxfhybrxe4eiurzf3kpu5a...@mail.gmail.com/ > > [1] > > Cc: All applicable <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > v2 -> v3: > > * Use resource_union() and adjust code and comment (Andy) > > * Include ioport.h directly > > > > v1 -> v2: > > * Add the expanded resource instead of and not in addition to the other > > overlapping one (Sashiko) > > > > --- > > drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ > > #include <linux/bits.h> > > #include <linux/device.h> > > #include <linux/err.h> > > +#include <linux/ioport.h> > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > #include <linux/module.h> > > #include <linux/dma-mapping.h> > > @@ -71,6 +72,36 @@ static struct notifier_block acpi_platfo > > .notifier_call = acpi_platform_device_remove_notify, > > }; > > > > +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))) > > + 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)) { > > + 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; > > +} > > + > > static void acpi_platform_fill_resource(struct acpi_device *adev, > > const struct resource *src, struct resource *dest) > > { > > @@ -151,10 +182,14 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_plat > > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > } > > count = 0; > > - list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node) > > + list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node) { > > + count = acpi_platform_adjust_resources(adev, > > + > > rentry->res, > > + > > resources, > > + count); > > acpi_platform_fill_resource(adev, rentry->res, > > > > &resources[count++]); > > - > > + } > > acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&resource_list); > > } > > } > > > > > > > > Applied to my tree I'll just run some tests.
Well, I've applied it too because I have material that depends on it. I guess it won't be a big deal if it goes in from two different places.
