Am Samstag, 1. August 2009 17:56:00 schrieb Alan Stern: > On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Samstag, 1. August 2009 03:54:04 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Neither more nor less -- it's not our concern. The right approach is > to have the storage driver not carry out its own suspend until the SCSI > suspend routines have been called. That way we don't violate layering. > And if anything goes wrong, we can blame the SCSI people. :-) This approach is, I am afraid, of limited utility. sd and its siblings are not drivers for hardware, they implement a set of commands. They can tell you they are busy, but not whether hardware cannot be suspended because state that can't be restored would be lost. The SCSI layer is written to export such stuff to transport handlers. > It means we have to figure out how to be sure that the SCSI suspend > routines have been invoked. We call them ;-) ? > Or to put it another way, we should do _exactly_ what sd would do -- by > asking sd to do it! Or more properly, by getting the SCSI core to tell > the appropriate drivers to do their own things. These are really two different proposals. > In any event, we will eventually want to tie this in with Rafael's new > runtime PM infrastructure. If usb-storage and SCSI both use it then > the integration should be fairly easy. Eventually or now? Do we have to wait for the framework to be merged? 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
