Re: [linux-pm] Re: The evilness of struct usb_device->auto_pm

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Friday, September 28, 2007 - 6:25 am

On Friday, 28 September 2007 09:04, Oliver Neukum wrote:
a message =

 runtime =



preserve
ing to happen.






he locking
system

 runtime




Well, I thought that it would be nicer if drivers handled autosuspend in a
transparent (from the point of view of the core) way.

Now, it seems to follow from what you're saying that this is not possible in
general, because of USB mass storage devices that need some special handlin=
g.

I'm not familiar with the USB code, so can you please tell me how the USB
autosuspend is handled at present and what exactly the problem with that is?

Greetings,
Rafael

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
The evilness of struct usb_device->auto_pm, Oliver Neukum, (Thu Sep 27, 4:56 am)
Re: The evilness of struct usb_device->auto_pm, Alan Stern, (Thu Sep 27, 9:05 am)
Re: [linux-pm] Re: The evilness of struct usb_device->auto_pm, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Thu Sep 27, 12:44 pm)
Re: [linux-pm] Re: The evilness of struct usb_device->auto_pm, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Sep 28, 6:25 am)
Re: , Oliver Neukum, (Thu Oct 4, 3:27 am)
Re: , Rafael J. Wysocki, (Thu Oct 4, 8:36 am)