Re: pci_disable_device() vs. arch

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > >Its not clutter -- what you are doing is hiding pieces of the driver > >from the driver maintainer. pcibios_enable_device should not be > >cluttered up with such mess, too. > > Well... pcibios_enable_device() has to at least make sure the device > gets

Re: pci_disable_device() vs. arch

> >Its not clutter -- what you are doing is hiding pieces of the driver >from the driver maintainer. pcibios_enable_device should not be >cluttered up with such mess, too. Well... pcibios_enable_device() has to at least make sure the device gets powered up as it's powered down after PCI probe.

Re: pci_disable_device() vs. arch

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Hi ! > > Would it make sense to add a > > pcibios_disable_device(pci_dev*) called from the end of > pci_disable_device() ? > > I'm adding a call to it to sungem along with other pmac stuffs > so that the chip can be properly power down (actually it's not >

pci_disable_device() vs. arch

Hi ! Would it make sense to add a pcibios_disable_device(pci_dev*) called from the end of pci_disable_device() ? I'm adding a call to it to sungem along with other pmac stuffs so that the chip can be properly power down (actually it's not really powered down but unclocked) after module

pci_disable_device() vs. arch

Hi ! Would it make sense to add a pcibios_disable_device(pci_dev*) called from the end of pci_disable_device() ? I'm adding a call to it to sungem along with other pmac stuffs so that the chip can be properly power down (actually it's not really powered down but unclocked) after module

Re: pci_disable_device() vs. arch

Its not clutter -- what you are doing is hiding pieces of the driver from the driver maintainer. pcibios_enable_device should not be cluttered up with such mess, too. Well... pcibios_enable_device() has to at least make sure the device gets powered up as it's powered down after PCI probe.

Re: pci_disable_device() vs. arch

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Its not clutter -- what you are doing is hiding pieces of the driver from the driver maintainer. pcibios_enable_device should not be cluttered up with such mess, too. Well... pcibios_enable_device() has to at least make sure the device gets powered up as

Re: pci_disable_device() vs. arch

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hi ! Would it make sense to add a pcibios_disable_device(pci_dev*) called from the end of pci_disable_device() ? I'm adding a call to it to sungem along with other pmac stuffs so that the chip can be properly power down (actually it's not really