On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 09:45:18PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about removing a "bus" and leaving > >> the upstream bridge (either a host bridge or a P2P bridge). I think > >> it'd make more sense to remove the bridge itself, which would of > >> course have the consequence of removing the secondary bus. > > > > for root bus, that remove pci_host_bridge and pci root bus. > > > > for pci bus under pci bridge, will remove that pci bus, but will still > > keep that pci bridge. > > that should be ok. just like some pci bridge is there, and later can > > not create child bus for it. > > > > there is one case: during test busn_alloc, i need to remove all device > > on one bus, and > > use setpci to change bridge bus number register. then use rescan > > bridge to create new bus. > > > > with this one, I just need to remove that bus, instead of remove > > children devices one by one. > > I don't think making it convenient for manual testing is an argument > for this interface. For sysfs interfaces it is more important to make > something that fits well into the grand plan of how things Should > Work. If you need internal helper functions for convenience, I'm OK > with that, because it's easier to change those than to change sysfs > interfaces. If it's "only" for testing, then put it in debugfs, not sysfs. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
