From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:57:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:57:23 -0500 Received: from front6.grolier.fr ([194.158.96.56]:40955 "EHLO front6.grolier.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:57:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:56:09 +0100 (CET) From: Gérard Roudier To: Alan Cox cc: Rasmus Andersen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] make sym53c8xx.c and ncr53c8xx.c call pci_enable_device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > If the pci_enable_device() thing is to be added to the drivers, it must > > preferently be placed after the checking against RAID attachement. > > You cant check the signature until the device has been enabled. Maybe you > could poke the LSI guys and find out how windows PnP stuff handles this. Personnaly I donnot need to know how windows handle this in order to figure out how it should be properly handled. In theory, the signature should be checked prior to any change in the device configuration space. But since PCI BIOS assigning of resource windows is complete mess-up, the O/S has to probe BAR sizes. The probing of BAR sizes does not seem to harm. This done, given that it is possible then to first check the signature and to leave quiet the device if it is owned by RAID, there is no valuable reason to still tamper the device for nothing if it is not to be attached. > I think the proposed change is ok because if the board is enabled then the > enabling code won't touch it. Can you swear that the code will never change ? Anyway, the current code at least enables response to IO and to MEM based on existing BARs. This probably does not harm but this should be done on behalf of the software driver and based on actually _used_ resources. On the other hand, the complex enabling of IRQ is really something we want to avoid in situation where it is not actually useful. End of story, since moving pci_enable_device() in its preferred place as I suggested is an obvious minute change. Gérard. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/