On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:46 AM, John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:39:10AM +0530, Sujith wrote: >> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > Just curious, if you revert this patch and apply the ones I just >> > posted, does it fix it, or is this patch required either way? >> >> Well, I don't see this patch in -testing, -next-2.6 or -2.6. >> Maybe Linville overlooked this patch. > > Obviously I didn't overlook it, or I wouldn't have asked about whether > or not it should go to 2.6.37... > >> Applying 4/5 and 5/5 from your series seems to fix the issue though. >> I am able to suspend/resume without hiccups with UB95. > > But now this begs the question of whether this should be applied at all? As I reviewed with Johannes the driver must ensure the device remains idle after we get the last stop() call. So this patch seems fine, I'd even consider removing the check for the if (!(hif_dev->flags & HIF_USB_START)) and also call ath9k_htc_suspend(hif_dev->htc_handle); upon resume to ensure it is kept in full sleep then as well. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
