[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201009141603.59338.oneukum@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:03:59 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
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
Am Dienstag, 14. September 2010, 16:01:14 schrieb Alan Stern:
> 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.
I am afraid it does matter as devices whose remote wakeup is enabled
may draw more power.
Regards
Oliver
--
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