On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 15:23 -0700, Elina Pasheva wrote: > On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 05:00 -0700, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > If possible you can > > use this as a base for autosuspend support. > I did implement the patch. > We will evaluate this implementation against our requirements and will > decide on it. Initial tests indicate perhaps it is a bit too aggressive > for us. > [PATCH 002/002] that we submitted does present a solution that works for > us. The debate with this patch so far is how to handle the situation > where some of our devices may contain a firmware revision that does not > support autosuspend without adding redundant control to sysfs. Hi Oliver, Thank again for preparing the patch for sierra. The patch has very good features, e.g. suspending the device even if a port is open but no activity, automatic wake-up of the device on activity, delaying urbs for submission. There might be a potential race condition in sierra_write() when it checks 'suspended' flag and sierra-resume() being executed at the same time, a bit more synchronization is needed in that area. I am trying to find a way to 'backport' this patch all the way to kernel-2.6.23 (as part of our requirements), since some of the kernel calls are not present below 2.6.29 (e.g. usb_autopm_put_interface_async()). In the meantime I am planning to resubmit our modified patch [PATCH002/002] where I removed the module parameter "support_autopm" and added proper device attribute removal function as advised). This patch can be 'backported' all the way back to kernel 2.6.23. Regards, Elina -- 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
