From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add ata_piix's own resume function Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 02:52:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4477F744.7070303@garzik.org> References: <1148634262.2310.7.camel@forrest26.sh.intel.com> <20060526230534.GA3640@suse.de> <44778F2A.7070708@garzik.org> <20060527062159.GB23315@suse.de> <4477F24E.8080407@garzik.org> <20060527064641.GA24012@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:25577 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751424AbWE0Gw4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 May 2006 02:52:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20060527064641.GA24012@suse.de> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: "zhao, forrest" , Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe wrote: > Since there's just the one device on the bus in this case, whether its Wrong. ata_piix must deal with master/slave, as must libata itself. > the device or bus posting BUSY seems pretty irrelevant. If anything, I'd > say that the act of iterating over possible devices hanging of the pci > device and resuming them from the pci handler is definitely the worst > approach. The pci driver resume function should do just one thing -- > resume the device itself. Who resumes the bus? hmmm? Please, read other drivers. Control flow always starts at driver::resume, and since the driver knows the hardware best, it _must_ be the one that directs the control flow. Jeff