Am Dienstag, den 24.10.2017, 12:16 +0800 schrieb Daniel Drake: > Hi Oliver, > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 18.10.2017, 15:15 +0800 schrieb Daniel Drake: > > > > > > Notes: > > > v2: > > > - Handle quirk later in suspend, to avoid interfering with other parts > > > of the suspend routine. > > > - Don't do the disconnect on runtime suspend, only for S3 suspend > > > > well, can we effectively runtime suspend these devices? > > How can I test for effective runtime suspend? No, I meant, does it make sense to do that? > > Furthermore, it seems to me that we indeed cannot do a runtime > > suspend on external devices needing this quirk, but what about > > internal devices? > > In this case the modem is an internal device. It seems to me that obviously if you disable a device's port you cannot support remote wakeup. But I do not see why, if the device is internal you would want to block runtime suspend, even if remote wakeup is not necessary. 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
