Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:34:32 +0100 From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: dfr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: newbus flaw Message-ID: <1084451672.14878.5.camel@builder02.qubesoft.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpsme4bo5g.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <xzp4qqn6n9v.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040512175351.GF601@funkthat.com> <xzp8yfxcrs7.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200405130927.01034.dfr@nlsystems.com> <xzpsme4bo5g.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 11:46, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> writes: > > When the old module unloaded, its driver will have detached from the > > device which it created. There is no reference to an old driver_t. Its > > perfectly safe for the new driver to use the old device. > > so why do you say I "shouldn't reset the old driver and desc"? I didn't say that (that was John-Mark). When you create a device using something like device_add_child(parent, "foo", unit), the new device is just labelled as a 'fooN' - it has no reference to any 'foo' driver and should have since there may be several. The 'foo'ness of the device is used to match the device against a suitable driver at probe time.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1084451672.14878.5.camel>