On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:52:03AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > I don't find justification to your argument in avoiding to fix drivers. We > > don't change the core when it means the impact would be to change every > > driver. And, we shouldn't change the core to avoid fixing a subset of > > drivers. The number of drivers that it affects should not be 100% of them. > > The issue of registering and unregistering devices during a sleep > transition has come up before. It's not going to go away. We should > find a good way to deal with it. Changing the core hotplug support so > that new unfrozen processes don't get started up while everything else is > frozen seems to me like a fairly small, cheap way of getting things to > work properly. > > Furthermore, Greg KH has stated that many (or even most) USB drivers > shouldn't need to have special support for suspend/resume added. I'm not > sure whether he intended that these drivers should be unbound during a > suspend, but that's the easiest way to handle them. No, my main point was that we can not abort the syspend sequence just because a USB driver does not have a suspend/resume callback. That is what was happening in the tree at the time, and a lot of different users complained about it. And yes, I don't mind if we just unbind those drivers from devices at suspend, as for USB that's probably the easiest way. thanks, greg k-h
