On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:57:01PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Dienstag 01 Juli 2008 14:56:30 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov: > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 11:08:47AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Dienstag 01 Juli 2008 09:59:01 schrieb Jiri Kosina: > > > > > I really don't think we want to return error in such cases. Either resume > > > > the device, or queue some requests (maybe depending on the type of > > > > requests), right? > > > > > > We are talking about forcibly suspended devices, so they cannot be > > > resumed. We could queue, but where would we end queuing? And we > > > have to decide to stop it at some point, or we create a DoS problem. > > > > > > The user has decided to put the device in a state in which the driver > > > cannot properly function. If the user wanted the driver to work, he should > > > select autosuspend. > > > > > > > That is the thing with the forced suspend - it leaves device out of > > sync with the rest of the system. If user really does not want to use > > the device it should probably be completely disconnected? > > Yes, therefore I suggested doing the logical disconnect. Would the persistence flag affect this? That is would the forced suspend cause a reset_resume instead if the driver supports it? -- Ville Syrjälä syrjala@xxxxxx http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
