On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 08:14:34PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> [Cc: -gregkh@xxxxxxx]
>
> Dear Alan,
>
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> Am 24.07.24 um 16:10 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 01:15:23PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > > This basically reverts commit b789696af8b4102b7cc26dec30c2c51ce51ee18b
> > > ("[PATCH] USB: relax usbcore reset timings") from 2005.
> > >
> > > This adds unneeded 40 ms during resume from suspend on a majority of
> >
> > Wrong. It adds 40 ms to the recovery time from a port reset -- see the
> > commit's title. Suspend and resume do not in general involve port
> > resets (although sometimes they do).
>
> It looks like on my system the ports are reset:
>
> ```
> $ grep suspend-240501-063619/hub_port_reset abreu_mem_ftrace.txt
> 6416.257589 | 3) kworker-9023 | | hub_port_reset
> [usbcore]() {
> 6416.387182 | 2) kworker-9023 | 129593.0 us | } /*
> hub_port_reset [usbcore] */
> ```
It depends on the hardware and the kind of suspend.
> > > devices, where it’s not needed, like the Dell XPS 13 9360/0596KF, BIOS
> > > 2.21.0 06/02/2022 with
> >
> > > The commit messages unfortunately does not list the devices needing this.
> > > Should they surface again, these should be added to the quirk list for
> > > USB_QUIRK_HUB_SLOW_RESET.
> >
> > This quirk applies to hubs that need extra time when one of their ports
> > gets reset. However, it seems likely that the patch you are reverting
> > was meant to help the device attached to the port, not the hub itself.
> > Which would mean that the adding hubs to the quirk list won't help
> > unless every hub is added -- in which case there's no point reverting
> > the patch.
> >
> > Furthermore, should any of these bad hubs or devices still be in use,
> > your change would cause them to stop working reliably. It would be a
> > regression.
> >
> > A better approach would be to add a sysfs boolean attribute to the hub
> > driver to enable the 40-ms reset-recovery delay, and make it default to
> > True. Then people who don't need the delay could disable it from
> > userspace, say by a udev rule.
>
> How would you name it?
You could call it "long_reset_recovery". Anything like that would be
okay.
Alan Stern
