On 2011-12-04 15:48, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 03:35:38PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-12-04 15:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 02:22:12PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
From: Jan Kiszka
There is no point in pushing this burden to
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 03:35:38PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-12-04 15:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 02:22:12PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> From: Jan Kiszka
> >>
> >> There is no point in pushing this burden to the devices, they may rather
> >> forget to call
On 2011-12-04 15:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 02:22:12PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> From: Jan Kiszka
>>
>> There is no point in pushing this burden to the devices, they may rather
>> forget to call them (like intel-hda and ahci ATM). Instead, reset
>> functions are now
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 02:22:12PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> From: Jan Kiszka
>
> There is no point in pushing this burden to the devices, they may rather
> forget to call them (like intel-hda and ahci ATM). Instead, reset
> functions are now called from pci_device_reset and pci_bridge_reset.
>
From: Jan Kiszka
There is no point in pushing this burden to the devices, they may rather
forget to call them (like intel-hda and ahci ATM). Instead, reset
functions are now called from pci_device_reset and pci_bridge_reset.
They do nothing if the MSI/MSI-X is not in use.
CC: Alexander Graf
CC: