Am Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2009 18:10:39 schrieb Alan Stern: > Oliver: > > There are a couple of significant differences between the existing USB > runtime PM code and the new framework. [..] > directly). In particular, their total usage change from binding to > unbinding must be exactly zero. I'm not sure the existing code in the > drivers does this. I am sure it does not. Under the current rules a driver must not touch the counter after it has been disconnected and there's no reason to touch it as a device is disconnected, because usbcore is about to take charge of it. > The second has to do with the power/level attribute. Currently the > framework doesn't define any runtime PM attributes, but it may well add > its own level attribute eventually. When it does, there won't be > anything corresponding to level = off. Should we start phasing this > feature out now? (This is one reason for adding the "safely remove > hardware" API; at the moment suspending a port is the closest > userspace can come to disabling it.) Kill it. > Here's a third matter (not directly related to the new framework but > connected with runtime PM): Should we add rudimentary autosuspend > support back into usb-storage? By default it will remain disabled, of > course. But there are many cases where it could be very helpful to > users -- think of low-power systems with USB flash drives. Such users > could enable it manually. I would add it, but it's Matthew's driver. 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
