On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 09:56:55AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:27:02PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thursday, 25 of September 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > This patch (as1141) adds code to use the device type's pm_op methods, > > > > if they are defined. It fixes a regression in the USB PM code; the > > > > various suspend and resume methods are defined in the device type > > > > rather than in the bus, because USB devices have to be handled > > > > differently from USB interfaces. Without the patch, those methods > > > > never get called. > > > > > > > > The patch also fixes a couple of spelling errors. > > > > > > Hm, these changes are not needed in the current mainline, so there's a patch > > > in -next that removes the code added by this patch. > > > > > > It might be better to find that patch and drop it instead, IMO. > > > > I agree, I think we would have seen more bugs if mainline can't suspend > > with a USB device attached, right? > > > > confused, > > Okay, I was confused too. Looking more closely, it's apparent that > mainline is okay and the problem was introduced by Hannes Reinecke's > > driver-core-remove-suspend-resume-callbacks-for-device-type.patch > > which states that the suspend/resume callbacks in struct device_type > are unused. It may be true that the legacy suspend/resume methods are > unused, but the new pm_ops methods definitely are used. > > Therefore part or all of Hannes patch should be reverted. And the > mainline is okay as it stands. Ah, ick. Hannes, care to respin this patch based on this information? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
