On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Montag, 23. November 2009 21:59:12 schrieb Alan Stern: > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Sunday 22 November 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > Rafael: > > > > > > > > Here's the situation. Device A has children B1, ..., Bn (possibly > > > > others too). I need to guarantee that whenever A is active, so are the > > > > children. > > > > > > > > > But it's perfectly valid to have an inactive device under an active > > > parent, so I guess this is not a general case. > > > > Correct. It's a specific case that I need to handle for USB. > > Hm. In which way is this different from a system where devices > share clock lines? It seems to me that groups of devices that > can be suspended only together are not rare. That in USB these > devices happen to be all a device's interfaces does not really > matter. That's not a good example because there's nothing wrong with suspending some of the devices while leaving the clock and the others running. You'll have to search harder to find a group of devices which really do need to be suspended all together. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
