On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 10:56 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 10:15 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > And even if there is a pending reset, all that will happen is the reset > > > will cause the port to power up again, and then the reset will occur. > > > > If and only if the port is still unpowered. > > If the port is powered, then: > > If the device is runtime-suspended, it will be resumed. > > The reset will occur normally. > > Perhaps the device will be runtime suspended again. > > What's the problem? We are doing a superfluous reset. Resets are not good. The normal operation of the device is interrupted. Any unnecessary reset should be avoided. > > > If you think it would help, the runtime suspend code could be changed > > > to prevent suspends if any queued resets are pending. > > > > If error handling requires a reset, there's no special likelihood that > > suspend will clear up the issue. It is specific to port power off. > > I don't understand what you mean. Neither suspend nor port power-off > is meant for handling errors. We use resets for that purpose. That was the intention. Yet if a power cycle doesn't do the job, a reset won't do it either. Regards Oliver -- 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
