On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 10:41 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > A recent patch, 7fa40910e0bf5ef32eca49595d950cb24f6402bf, added a > > > CONNECTED retry for a different reason and I could simply increase > > > this retry time. Any thoughts? > > > > I don't know. You've got a non-compliant host combined with an > > excessively slow device. It seems unwise to penalize everybody by > > slowing down their resumes (by 500 ms!) just because of this one > > bad combination. > > > > On the other hand, I don't have any better ideas. > > Yet another quirk. Assume this to be necessary only if the port > was connected to a quirky device before loss of power. Yeah, okay. Although we have no way to know that the non-compliant host controller turned off the port power. Alan, can you provide the vendor and product IDs for your USB-3 flash drive? Or would you prefer to write a patch yourself? Alan Stern -- 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
