On Tuesday 27 November 2012 10:30:02 Alan Stern wrote: > I disagree. The usbfs interface is not as capable as the kernel's > internal API; that has always been true. One of its limitations is the > inability to request remote wakeups. We could add that to usbfs, but > for now it isn't there. Yes. > If that limitation means the buggy modem will crash whenever it is > being driven by a user program and the system suspends, so be it. We As far as the device is under control of usbfs that is a defensible viewpoint. > shouldn't expect the kernel to work around hardware bugs when the > device in question isn't even under the control of a kernel driver. That is not a position that is useful. In particular there's necessarily (if you use a modular kernel) a window where a device is configured due to the kernel's action, but not yet bound to a driver. We'd crash the device if we go to a system suspend then. That is no good and one more reason this must be handled in usbcore, not in cdc-acm. 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
