On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:40:03PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 13:36 +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:44:37PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I also got a problem with such a device and I took your patch > > > and applied it to this device. What do you think? The only > > > substantial change I made was not counting unrequested input > > > for autosuspend. > > > > Ah, good to know there are more devices that need this quirk. > > Actually, I'd prefer you to be the only one. ;-) > But shared misery is better than single misery. Indeed. :) > > I got side-tracked with other stuff, but I should be able to submit the > > patch this week (just want to look through it once more first). > > Good. > > > Not sure the mark-last-busy needs to be moved, though. The device has > > already been woken up, and might as well stay unsuspended for a while > > longer should further events occur. > > Why? Remote wakeup will be disabled. It would be a waste of power. No, remote wake up is (and has to be) enabled. So we'd only suspend slightly sooner in case there are multiple events, and sometimes only to be immediately woken up again (e.g. if someone is holding a finger against the touch screen). Johan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
