Re: Remove CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:00:58AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:21:18PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:55:33PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:28:38PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:11:15AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > I suggest that we remove the CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND option, starting in
> > > > > 3.9.  Practically everyone enables it, and the amount of code it
> > > > > protects is fairly small (just portions of usbcore, nothing in the 
> > > > > drivers).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Basically, if people don't want their kernels to save power then they
> > > > > should turn off CONFIG_PM.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Objections, anyone?
> > > > Sorry, I may not agree with this due to below reasons:
> > > > 
> > > > - Some customers wants system PM, but do not want usb runtime power
> > > > management, such as Car Navigation System. They want system
> > > > responds fast after user press power on key, but they don't care
> > > > usb power during runtime.
> > > 
> > > What is "fast"?  And you can always explicitly keep the device away by
> > > writing to the proper sysfs file, right?
> > I mean system suspend/resume.
> 
> That's totally different and is not relevant here.
> 
> > > And this isn't always true from all automotive systems, some that I talk
> > > to in that industry do need this, as they are not allowed to drain a lot
> > > of power all the time (think about when running on a car battery), and
> > > their power budget is quite low.
> > 
> > Correct, CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND can let the user choose if they want
> > USB runtime PM or not, you know different users may have different
> > requirements.
> 
> I don't know anyone that doesn't want USB runtime suspend, that's the
> issue here.
> 
> > > > - For embedded system, we have may SoCs, and USB low power mode
> > > > is the most challenge job when we bring up new USB module, usually,
> > > > our develop sequence like: basic USB functions --> USB function after
> > > > System suspend/resume --> USB Runtime PM. We usually disable USB
> > > > runtime PM at first.
> > > 
> > > So you need to get this working properly for your devices, what's wrong
> > > with that?  :)
> > 
> > Yes, we can debug that but it needs some efforts. Maybe for alpha release
> > we only add basic USB function, for beta release we will add usb suspend/resume
> > function. Then, at next release, we will add USB runtime PM.
> > I just want to say keep CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND can give users more choices
> > no matter debug, development or final product procedure.
> 
> That really is only your issue, and one that might force your company to
> actually work better with the Linux kernel community in order to get
> your hardware working properly upstream (hint, Freescale has a horrible
> reputation here, I personally always advise people to use other hardware
> because of it.)

Thanks, greg. I will share it to other Freescale guys, hope we can work
better with community in near future.
> 
> We don't have "alpha" and the like type of releases.  If this option
> goes away, it still doesn't affect your ability to actually support USB
> suspend in a better way, but it becomes more obvious that you don't,
> which I think is a good thing.
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

-- 

Best Regards,
Peter Chen

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux