On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:42:37AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:42:29 +0530 > Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 01:16:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Why would you want to wake up the Host though remote wakeup feature > > > > is not set by the host? Host might have disabled the wakeup > > > > capability on purpose. Peripheral must honor it. > > > > > > Because this is a sysfs interface so user triggered. The superuser > > > often should be able to override system behaviour. > > > > > Can not kernel return -ENOTSUPP to superuser? > > Why should it ? > Because the request can not be supported. > > Here the system behaviour is not controlled with in the system. Master (Host) > > disabled the remote-wakeup capability on the bus. Slave (peripheral) should > > honor it. > > The superuser wishes to override the behaviour. Who is the ultimate > dictator of behaviour, the system owner or the kernel ? > User wants to wakeup the Host. If host has enabled wakeup feauture it is fine. If it is not enabled, user might want to know that. But doing an illegal operation (According to USB spec) on behalf of super user is wrong. If really there is a need for breaking the rule, another sysfs entry like "force_remote_wakeup" would be better. -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- 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
