From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964809AbWDZQYR (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:24:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964811AbWDZQYQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:24:16 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:19126 "EHLO orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964809AbWDZQYQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:24:16 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,158,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="28058688:sNHT49725851" Subject: Re: [patch] pciehp: dont call pci_enable_dev From: Kristen Accardi To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: pcihpd-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1146066747.7016.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <1145919059.6478.29.camel@whizzy> <1145945819.3114.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1146002437.6478.43.camel@whizzy> <1146066747.7016.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:32:44 -0700 Message-Id: <1146069164.25081.5.camel@whizzy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2006 16:23:17.0598 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9B987E0:01C6694D] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 17:52 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 15:00 -0700, Kristen Accardi wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 08:16 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 15:50 -0700, Kristen Accardi wrote: > > > > Don't call pci_enable_device from pciehp because the pcie port service driver > > > > already does this. > > > > > > hmmmm shouldn't pci_enable_device on a previously enabled device just > > > succeed? Sounds more than logical to me to make it that way at least... > > > > I can't think of any reason why not. Something like this what you had > > in mind perhaps? > > > > --- > > the question then becomes if enable/disable should become "counting", eg > enable twice disable once leaves enabled at count one.... ugh, no. 1) I think we should avoid adding more counting unless it's absolutely necessary. 2) if a device calls pci_disable_device it should always actually disable the device, because it is generally called in drivers either when the device is being shutdown, or suspended.