On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Manjunath Goudar wrote:
> On 20 June 2013 22:23, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Manjunath Goudar wrote:
> >
> > > > > @@ -686,7 +631,7 @@ ohci_hcd_at91_drv_suspend(struct platform_device
> > > > *pdev, pm_message_t mesg)
> > > > > * REVISIT: some boards will be able to turn VBUS off...
> > > > > */
> > > > > if (at91_suspend_entering_slow_clock()) {
> > > > > - ohci_usb_reset (ohci);
> > > > > + ohci_restart(ohci);
> > > >
> > > > Why did you change this? Did we discuss it earlier?
> > > >
> > >
> > > We are not discussed regarding this,I think we need to call
> > > use ohci_resume() instead of ohci_restart().
> >
> > Why? Don't you think the current code has a good reason for calling
> > ohci_usb_reset()?
> >
> >
> Here ohci_usb_reset() is static function,that is what I am planing to call
> ohci_setup() or ohci_restart() because it is calling ohci_usb_reset(),
> If not calling, we can make ohci_usb_reset() function as non-static
> function
> or use directly ohci_usb_reset() function code here.
>
> Let me know which one is good approach.
As a general rule, you should never change code that you don't
understand. Do you _know_ that it will be safe to call ohci_setup() or
ohci_restart() at this point?
It might be a good idea to get in touch with the person who wrote that
routine originally and ask why they used ohci_usb_reset().
Alan Stern
--
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
