On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, David Brownell wrote: > > > FWIW the appended patch removes that rude "order of registration" > > policy, so that the suspend/resume list matches the device tree. > > It's behaved OK on PCs and, in light duty, a few development boards; > > I've carried it around most of this year. > > Actually I'm surprised that it works with USB devices. > > As they are registered, you patch adds new devices to the list > immediately after their parents. This means that the children of a > particular device will be listed in reverse order of registration, > right? > > So if you have a USB hub, the hub's children will be added following > the hub, and the hub's interface will come after all the children since > it gets registered before them. Hence during suspend, the interface's > suspend method will be called before any of the children are suspended. > But hub_suspend() will fail if there are unsuspended children. I take it back. Interfaces get suspended along with their device; hence it doesn't matter in what order the interface is listed with respect to the children. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
