Revert "generic: add pending patch fixing resource_size()"

This reverts commit 63e2b17c011318b7f7a5c7082fd8c969c430d7df.

Further discussion with Upstream for the topic revealed an even subtle
problem that require specific driver to be fixed. Revert the wrong
generic fix in favor of specific ath11k fix.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/#m990492684913c5a158ff0e5fc90697d8ad95351b
Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <[email protected]>

diff --git a/target/linux/generic/pending-6.12/210-resource-handle-wrong-resource_size-value-on-zero-st.patch b/target/linux/generic/pending-6.12/210-resource-handle-wrong-resource_size-value-on-zero-st.patch
deleted file mode 100644 (file)
index af93a56..0000000
--- a/target/linux/generic/pending-6.12/210-resource-handle-wrong-resource_size-value-on-zero-st.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,80 +0,0 @@
-From 7e1241396c241f9b4fff2ff133806fef4ddd9ecc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Christian Marangi <[email protected]>
-Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2025 22:18:11 +0100
-Subject: [PATCH] resource: handle wrong resource_size value on zero start/end
- resource
-
-Commit 900730dc4705 ("wifi: ath: Use
-of_reserved_mem_region_to_resource() for "memory-region"") uncovered a
-massive problem with the usage of resource_size() helper.
-
-The reported commit caused a regression with ath11k WiFi firmware
-loading and the change was just a simple replacement of duplicate code
-with a new helper of_reserved_mem_region_to_resource().
-
-On reworking this, in the commit also a check for the presence of the
-node was replaced with resource_size(&res). This was done following the
-logic that if the node wasn't present then it's expected that also the
-resource_size is zero, mimicking the same if-else logic.
-
-This was also the reason the regression was mostly hard to catch at
-first sight as the rework is correctly done given the assumption on the
-used helpers.
-
-BUT this is actually not the case. On further inspection on
-resource_size() it was found that it NEVER actually returns 0.
-
-Even if the resource value of start and end are 0, the return value of
-resource_size() will ALWAYS be 1, resulting in the broken if-else
-condition ALWAYS going in the first if condition.
-
-This was simply confirmed by reading the resource_size() logic:
-
-       return res->end - res->start + 1;
-
-Given the confusion, also other case of such usage were searched in the
-kernel and with great suprise it seems LOTS of place assume
-resource_size() should return zero in the context of the resource start
-and end set to 0.
-
-Quoting for example comments in drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c:
-
-               /*
-                * The PCI core shouldn't set up a resource with a
-                * type but zero size. But there may be bugs that
-                * cause us to do that.
-                */
-               if (!resource_size(res))
-                       goto no_mmap;
-
-It really seems resource_size() was tought with the assumption that
-resource struct was always correctly initialized before calling it and
-never set to zero.
-
-But across the year this got lost and now there are lots of driver that
-assume resource_size() returns 0 if start and end are also 0.
-
-To better handle this and make resource_size() returns correct value in
-such case, add a simple check and return 0 if both resource start and
-resource end are zero.
-
-Cc: Rob Herring (Arm) <[email protected]>
-Cc: [email protected]
-Fixes: 1a4e564b7db9 ("resource: add resource_size()")
-Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <[email protected]>
----
- include/linux/ioport.h | 3 +++
- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
-
---- a/include/linux/ioport.h
-+++ b/include/linux/ioport.h
-@@ -283,6 +283,9 @@ static inline void resource_set_range(st
- 
- static inline resource_size_t resource_size(const struct resource *res)
- {
-+      if (!res->start && !res->end)
-+              return 0;
-+
-       return res->end - res->start + 1;
- }
- static inline unsigned long resource_type(const struct resource *res)