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 19:44:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:44:57 -0500 Received: from havoc.daloft.com ([64.213.145.173]:15512 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:44:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:52:50 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik To: Dave Jones , Ivan Kokshaysky , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 2.5] PCI: kill pdev_enable_device() Message-ID: <20021218005250.GA27607@gtf.org> References: <20021217201938.A16940@jurassic.park.msu.ru> <3DFFA5DD.4030804@pobox.com> <20021218004226.GA3204@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021218004226.GA3204@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 12:42:26AM +0000, Dave Jones wrote: > 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. The solution in the driver is almost always pci_enable_device(). That recent issue was related to subsystem code not driver code; for that specific situation, you are absolutely right: pci_enable_device is not the right thing to do. Jeff