Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 05:31:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 05:31:34 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:39694 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 05:31:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 02:29:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Eric W. Biederman" cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Alan Cox , , Patrick Mochel , Jonathan Lundell Subject: Re: [RFC] New Driver Model for 2.5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25 Oct 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Or another fun common one. To shut down the interrupt controller, I first > need to shut down every device that thinks it can generate interrupts. > But my interrupt controller is way out on my pci->isa bridge. So I > can't shut that device down. > > Sorry this whole device tree idea for shutdown ordering doesn't seem > to match my idea of reality. Your _examples_ do not match any reality. Don't worry about things like the CPU shutdown: you have to have special code for it anyway. Let's face it, the device tree is for _devices_. It's for shutting down a network card before we shut down the PCI bridge that is in front of it. The issue of "core shutdown" is not covered - and isn't _meant_ to be covered. That's the problem of the architecture-specific code. There is no point in having a device tree for that, because it's going to be very much architecture-specific anyway (ie on x86 we may have to just blindly trust some silly APCI table data etc). Linus - 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/