Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:39:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:39:26 -0500 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:29329 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:39:25 -0500 Subject: Re: PnP model From: Alan Cox To: Jaroslav Kysela Cc: Adam Belay , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "greg@kroah.com" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1044287108.20788.8.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 (1.2.1-2) Date: 03 Feb 2003 15:45:09 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 769 Lines: 17 On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 13:55, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > I strongly vote to follow the same behaviour as PCI code does: > It means call the activation / enabling / setting functions from the > probe() callbacks. Only the driver knows what's the best. Including > the manual assignment of resources. I agree. A lot of drivers should be able to use one model for everything including "enable_device" stuff. Right now its all a bit too detailed. Also the locking model seems very unclear and there are hot swappable ISA bays - 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/