[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1009140954180.1648-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:01:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...l.ru>,
<pingc@...om.com>, linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-input@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] wacom + runtime PM = AA deadlock
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 13. September 2010, 22:02:16 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > > Is there any point in resuming the device during close() just in order
> > > > to kill the interrupt URB? It seems counterproductive -- if the device
> > > > had been suspended then there wouldn't be any interrupt URB to kill in
> > > > the first place.
> > >
> > > Suppose the device does not support remote wakeup. It would never
> > > be autosuspended while it is open, but simply resetting the flag
> > > would never reach the PM layer.
> >
> > Whoops, that's right. I didn't see the assignment to
> > needs_remote_wakeup.
>
> Should I have used usb_autopm_get_interface_no_resume()?
That actually would work. It's a good idea. The only drawback (not a
big one) is that if the device _was_ suspended with remote wakeup
enabled, doing this wouldn't turn off remote wakeup. I think that
doesn't matter.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists