Am Dienstag, 24. November 2009 20:37:45 schrieb Alan Stern: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 24. November 2009 16:44:53 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > How is calling a reset_resume method any worse than going through an > > > unbind/rebind cycle? Either way, the device's data will be lost. > > > > If the device is disconnected everything is clear. A hotplug event > > will be issued and data loss can be expected. > > Yes, that's true. > > There is a snag, unfortunately. The new runtime PM framework doesn't > offer any convenient way to provide a reason for a runtime resume -- > nothing like the pm_message_t argument. Unless we do something > inelegant like storing the reason in the usb_device structure, there > will be no way to distinguish a user-generated resume (writing "on" to > /sys/.../power/level) from an autoresume from a remote wakeup. Hence > there will be no way to tell whether or not to attempt a reset-resume. I don't think we need the reason. The mere fact that a resumption leads to a reset while remote wakeup is requested should be enough. Unless we are resuming from a system sleep, but that's a global event. Such a device cannot be used with runtime power management and this driver unless it is marked quirky, whereby autosuspend with remote wakeup requested would be prevented. 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
