Hey Fabio, On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 05:27:09PM -0200, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Uwe Kleine-König > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > It also works. However I wonder if it's right that I'm spammed by > > over-current messages now (independent of which fix I choose) as long as > > there is something connected to the port that draws too much power: > > > > [ 53.406833] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition > > [ 53.631749] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition > > [ 53.856720] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition > > [ 54.081732] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition > > [ 54.306727] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition > > [ 54.531722] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition > > [ 54.756722] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition > > > > It seems to be intended or am I missing something? > > Does it help if you pass 'disable-over-current' property? I assume it does, but that's not the point. It seems to work just fine, because the messages come in iff there is an over-current condition on that port. I guess what is really wanted here is that the loop start: printk(overcurrent-event) disable port power sleep enable port power goto start gets a bit smarter to not print the message even if the port signals a new overcurrent event after power was reset. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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
