On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 05:47:11PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 23:50 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:55:52AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 10:42 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Alan. > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I thought you were wrong for a minute, but then I looked again at > > > > > the messages in my dmesg... > > > > > > > > > > [ 33.944214] Device driver usbdev1.1_ep00 lacks bus and class support for being resumed. > > > > > [ 34.051765] Device driver usbdev1.1_ep81 lacks bus and class support for being resumed. > > > > > [ 34.113740] Device driver usbdev2.1_ep00 lacks bus and class support for being resumed. > > > > > [ 34.221541] Device driver usbdev2.1_ep81 lacks bus and class support for being resumed. > > > > > [ 34.251562] Device driver usbdev3.1_ep00 lacks bus and class support for being resumed. > > > > > [ 34.361345] Device driver usbdev3.1_ep81 lacks bus and class support for being resumed. > > > > > > > > > > They're coming from the other printk, of course. > > > > > > > > > > > Now perhaps you would prefer to check the USB interface drivers -- there > > > > > > are many of them, and quite a few don't have suspend or resume methods. > > > > > > You would need to modify usb_register_driver() instead of > > > > > > usb_register_device_driver(). > > > > > > > > > > Would they be the ones covered above? > > > > > > > > No. As Greg pointed out, these usbdevXX_epYY "devices" are nothing but > > > > placeholders at the moment. They don't actually do anything and they have > > > > no need for power management. (But they do manage to clutter up the > > > > system log with lots of extraneous warnings from the PM core...) > > > > > > Ok, so they could have the pm_safe flag set to suppress the message. > > > > No, we don't want a flag just to shut up a message, that's the first > > thing a developer will do when they see that message, without realizing > > what exactly they should be doing instead. > > > > Trust me, I know the lengths kernel developers go to to try to work > > around "helpful hints" that the kernel can spit out at you :( > > Ok, then. So... what would you suggest (if anything)? As your check was for something that wasn't really correct at all, I suggest just dropping the patch :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
