Am Dienstag, 14. September 2010, 16:01:14 schrieb Alan Stern: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Montag, 13. September 2010, 22:02:16 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > > > Is there any point in resuming the device during close() just in order > > > > > to kill the interrupt URB? It seems counterproductive -- if the device > > > > > had been suspended then there wouldn't be any interrupt URB to kill in > > > > > the first place. > > > > > > > > Suppose the device does not support remote wakeup. It would never > > > > be autosuspended while it is open, but simply resetting the flag > > > > would never reach the PM layer. > > > > > > Whoops, that's right. I didn't see the assignment to > > > needs_remote_wakeup. > > > > Should I have used usb_autopm_get_interface_no_resume()? > > That actually would work. It's a good idea. The only drawback (not a > big one) is that if the device _was_ suspended with remote wakeup > enabled, doing this wouldn't turn off remote wakeup. I think that > doesn't matter. I am afraid it does matter as devices whose remote wakeup is enabled may draw more power. Regards Oliver _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
