On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 10:39:32PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2012, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > It looks like you're replacing a reset_resume method with a regular > > > resume method. Is that really the right thing to do? > > > > As only 2 usb-serial drivers have ever implemented reset_resume, and > > they both did the same exact thing that their resume functions did, I > > think it is safe as resume will be called if reset_resume is not set, > > right? > > Actually no. If the device is going through a reset-resume and a > driver's reset_resume method pointer isn't set, the driver will be > unbound and then later rebound. It's not a matter of just calling the > resume method instead. > > Although maybe for serial devices it doesn't make much difference. Maybe for the sierra device it might matter. So, should we just have a reset_resume callback in the usbserial driver structure? If that is set, then we can set the usb_driver field as well, which should keep things working properly I think. greg k-h -- 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
