On Wednesday 26 April 2006 23:31, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 26 April 2006 4:26 am, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 April 2006 00:56, David Brownell wrote: > > > > But it's not the root cause of the problem either. The same problem appears if > > > the device holding the resume partition gets forced into this "broken suspend" > > > state. > > > > Well, IMO the state may or may not be broken depending on the device, > > so we should not assume it will always be broken. > > Not so. See my previous emails. The "broken suspend" state is broken > by definition. Maybe you're referring to a different issue ... whether > or not its driver would notice that bug. It is a bug from your point of view, and I was referring to the fact that it apparently doesn't matter for many drivers. > > > Now, if you have specific examples of things that shouldn't be reset, that > > > could be interesting. > > > > The resume device and friends (ie. controller, bus, etc.). > > Bad answer. If its driver would notice, then it must be reset. > And if the driver wouldn't notice, resetting won't matter. > > There's still no example of a device that should not be reset > (a second time). OK, so I have no any. Which doesn't seem to matter as far as your patch is concerned, as Pavel doesn't like it anyway. ;-) Greetings, Rafael
