On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 10:45:15PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Greg KH wrote: > > > > And yes, we _should_ care about whether or not any interface is > > > still active, until the pm core code starts to pay attention to > > > the driver model tree at all times ... even outside of system-wide > > > suspend transitions. Today, the pm core code doesn't even use > > > that tree directly, and all runtime state changes (like selective > > > suspend with USB) completely bypass that pm tree. > > > > Hm, ok, yes, we should care about interfaces, but we need some way to > > only walk them, not anything else that might be attached to us... > > In my upcoming patch set this test isn't needed at all, because suspending > a device automatically suspends all of its interfaces first. I've already > submitted the first few revised patches in that set (not the part that > removes the test, though), but you've probably been too busy to look at > them yet. I've glanced at them (and yes, been busy, they are still in my TO-APPLY queue, trying to sync up with Linus first), but I don't see anything in that set that changes the suspend logic. Or am I just missing something obvious? Which patch does that in your revised series? thanks, greg k-h
