Messages in this thread | | | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Subject | pci_disable_device() vs. arch | Date | Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:53:31 +0200 |
| |
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 removal. Of course, the arch code must be able to catch it in order to play with the various UniNorth control bits.
Note that my current gmac driver does shut the chip down when the interface is down, which makes it a bit more useful for laptops as most users currently compile the driver in the kernel.
I have nothing about changing the policy if you prefer so that users will now have to rmmod the driver once done with the interface to save power.
Ben.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |