lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Subjectpci_disable_device() vs. arch
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.071 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site