From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:35:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:35:29 -0500 Received: from noodles.codemonkey.org.uk ([213.152.47.19]:62104 "EHLO noodles.internal") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:35:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:42:26 +0000 From: Dave Jones To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Ivan Kokshaysky , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 2.5] PCI: kill pdev_enable_device() Message-ID: <20021218004226.GA3204@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Jeff Garzik , Ivan Kokshaysky , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20021217201938.A16940@jurassic.park.msu.ru> <3DFFA5DD.4030804@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DFFA5DD.4030804@pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 05:31:57PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Ivan Kokshaysky wrote: > >- So, if we don't touch the PCI command registers, there is no point in > > using pdev_enable_device(). Most drivers properly use > > pci_enable_device() anyway. > Not only that, a driver _should_ be calling pci-enable-device, it's an > API requirement. J Random Driver should have a good reason _not_ to > call pci_enable_device() ... What about the xircom issue that was discussed in the last days ? Sounds like the solution isn't a full on pci_enable_device() as pcmcia 'knows better than us' at that stage aparently. Dave -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs