Brett Russ wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Brett Russ wrote:
2) Isn't it wrong for the IRQ disable at the chip to occur *after*
free_irq() is called to disconnect the handler (independent of
question 1...since this is the case currently)? Granted, all of the
ports have gone through scsi_remove_host() but theoretically there
still is a possibility the chip could interrupt.
Answer: depends on hardware.
For all hardware, the conditions that generate interrupts should be shut
down, and then free_irq() is called after that.
Some hardware only needs per-port disable, or nothing besides clearing
any commands, to ensure that interrupts from that hardware are disabled
(this excludes shared interrupts, of course).
This logic is another reason why a driver author may choose to implement
their own PCI ->remove() hook, rather than using the generic
ata_pci_remove_one(). Eliminates the need for a ->host_stop() hook
implementation, and allows one to perform tasks before calling
free_irq(), as well as tasks after the call (normal ->host_stop stuff).
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
