From nobody Mon Dec 1 22:37:14 2025 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89C333254B3; Fri, 28 Nov 2025 11:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.15 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764330673; cv=none; b=XFS5i4pspJ9xtGC17wRfenRG0dOBwt+UVckZksPFGi/CtbPefW2KzcZlEygzDcHNvMfMuhUcW5+yWkECLB9TPolrayNIHMfAQ06xbqy0BFYbjGa9e63/I+AOV77r5JTEPRYiPS7XNOWmFs6eU9ZI5K9phVukn5szggboRzJqqv0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764330673; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f7e+ax9Ru72J3uJsHwCnUx8Tp2bSDJ1UUdD+RCIJtcs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Oauy3tRBfgs8cTNbMAlV08di4mGYjlphsW2cCdopa+B9sWtgPisEqhHKRU+69iEvUnLw8/F7/uZNHfYu5a4R6jlT7zzoEZFeGVeq3bhpmjBkcdF31GwDc+xfrGL65AAhbDHeRTikinkUkP+Xr3fuoolF0K9z1orLgKI+gAzvyRw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=jYZNRsHO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.15 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="jYZNRsHO" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1764330671; x=1795866671; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f7e+ax9Ru72J3uJsHwCnUx8Tp2bSDJ1UUdD+RCIJtcs=; b=jYZNRsHOtSF0AFrTc6OaPsAVkCiCgzHNjM7ZVzZQESeSs17F9OIfogA4 L4phaBlVv7xabg9YdTURLVTbRx1ha/jPEbDFMZ1J3VIWmY4bbNMliAcyb qKd39idQcAqkWVLn4AVcR9yYwLPJ1T0BGCkYyJMf8f2j6r39pgYvVP1oJ yE6OWBi3X2Vueo8VgPCfmo3Z21xP4vN23757xTpXQxCxVnBR8BtxbupLv ZErkrIGYC3OVRB33Fisk8ZJKykNAP+B5V+159XqWGfz2XPp3tnpsrHe15 7Z9b4WQgVXH5lrrcAudCmyTi+ScPAs/sD2Y29KR/mPdhoHij77YnzxcEF A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 1uI9/OnRR06scdPN/W7nNQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: OhEMi9yNR5mLzT6fv3KJoA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11626"; a="66437159" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.20,232,1758610800"; d="scan'208";a="66437159" Received: from orviesa001.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.141]) by fmvoesa109.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Nov 2025 03:51:10 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: LnbTp9DGRl+1dwxMlrpg+g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 5HOVqoyiSyO+TzAv3Uo30g== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.20,232,1758610800"; d="scan'208";a="230725521" Received: from ijarvine-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.229]) by smtpauth.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Nov 2025 03:51:07 -0800 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= To: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Wei Yang , =?UTF-8?q?Malte=20Schr=C3=B6der?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= Subject: [PATCH 4/4] resource: Increase MAX_IORES_LEVEL to 8 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 13:50:21 +0200 Message-Id: <20251128115021.4287-5-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.5 In-Reply-To: <20251128115021.4287-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> References: <20251128115021.4287-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While debugging a PCI resource allocation issue, the resources for many nested bridges and endpoints got flattened in /proc/iomem by MAX_IORES_LEVEL that is set to 5. This made the iomem output hard to read as the visual hierarchy cues were lost. Increase MAX_IORES_LEVEL to 8 to avoid flattening PCI topologies with nested bridges so aggressively (the case in the Link has the deepest resource at level 7 so 8 looks a reasonable limit). Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D220775 Signed-off-by: Ilpo J=C3=A4rvinen --- kernel/resource.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c index b9fa2a4ce089..c5c907b3236d 100644 --- a/kernel/resource.c +++ b/kernel/resource.c @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static struct resource *next_resource(struct resource *p,= bool skip_children, =20 #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS =20 -enum { MAX_IORES_LEVEL =3D 5 }; +enum { MAX_IORES_LEVEL =3D 8 }; =20 static void *r_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos) __acquires(resource_lock) --=20 2.39.5