On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 15:34 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:07:55PM +0800, Libin wrote: > > > >From d3055401927f70e4de7717138b4c8ecad8b8223a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Libin Yang <libin.yang@xxxxxxx> > > > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:50:41 +0800 > > > Subject: [PATCH 3/5] xHCI: bus power management implementation > > > > > > This patch implements xHCI bus suspend/resume function hook. > > > > > > In the patch it goes through all the ports and suspend/resume > > > the ports if needed. > > > > I thought the USB core ensured that all devices were suspended before > > suspending the root hub. Alan, can you confirm? > > It does not ensure this if CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND isn't enabled. In such > cases it never suspends any ports, but it still calls the HCDs' > bus_suspend routines if CONFIG_PM is set. So does this mean that if CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND isn't enabled, bus_suspend() can straight skip the port suspend and return? Or bus_suspend() needs suspend the ports? BTW: Is Greg's git address: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/usb-2.6.git > > Also, the core doesn't suspend ports that aren't enabled. This may or > may not matter for your purposes. > > Alan Stern > > P.S.: Maybe this is the ranting of a grouchy old stick-in-the-mud, but > I do wish that people would trim their email replies. Is it really > necessary to post a 270-line message in order to send a 2-line question > plus 14 lines of context and signature? > > -- 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
