![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 02:55:39PM +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > > On Mer, 2004-09-08 at 04:14, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: > >> > Think about unloading frame buffers or PCI devices with multiple > >> > functions and multiple drivers. I agree the drivers definitely want > >> > fixing where appropriate. I'm not sure your approach is safe (although a > >> > >> I don't understand what you are worried about. Could you tell me > >> what would be a problem with frame buffers or PCI devices with > >> multiple functions? > > > > If I have a framebuffer driver loaded for my video card in bitmap mode > > all is well. If I unload it you then disable the video hardware even > > though it would still be otherwise usable in text mode. > > > > The same occurs when one PCI device has multiple functions (not PCI > > functions but linux drivers using it). There are some examples of this > > such as the CS5520 where one BAR is the IDE controller. > > > > Thank you for answering. > > I understand that there are some devices that need to be enabled > even after their drivers are unloaded, and my approach might not > be safe in this case. I think the best way to solve the problem > (missing pci_disable_device) is to fix broken drivers one by one. > I think debug printk will helpful to fix those drivers, but I > don't know what kind of message is appropriate... Yes, this should be pointed out with a warning message, which will be safer. How about something like: dev_warn(&pci_dev->dev, "Device was removed without properly " "calling pci_disable_device(), please fix.\n"); WARN_ON(1); Care to redo your patch with that? thanks, greg k-h - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||