[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-usb-devel
Subject:    Re: [linux-usb-devel] The evilness of struct usb_device->auto_pm
From:       Alan Stern <stern () rowland ! harvard ! edu>
Date:       2007-09-27 16:05:10
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0709271202150.7735-100000 () iolanthe ! rowland ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> doing autosuspend for the storage driver, this feature was a sore point.
> At some point we have to cross subsystem borders when doing runtime
> suspend on a subtree of the device tree. Drivers need to know whether
> they are doing a system wide suspend or a runtime suspend. The locking
> requirements at the very least are different.
> We need a standardised way to tell drivers what kind of suspension they
> are dealing with. So I think it has to move into the generic struct device
> or become a part of the message parameter.

If it goes anywhere, it ought to be in the message parameter.  My
reason for putting it in struct usb_device originally was because there
was no other choice at the time.

But there's a problem, in that the resume methods don't take a message 
parameter.  So they wouldn't know whether they were doing a runtime 
resume or a system resume.

Alan Stern


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]