[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E00D9D09-50A7-46C8-B141-9338F85B0020@holtmann.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:22:26 +0200
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>,
"Gustavo F. Padovan" <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"bluez mailin list (linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org)"
<linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] Bluetooth: Make request workqueue freezable
Hi Alan,
>>>> I am not convinced. Now we are hacking the Bluetooth core layer
>>>> (which has nothing to do with the drivers suspend/resume or
>>>> probe) to do something different so that we do not see this
>>>> warning.
>>>>
>>>> I can not do anything about the platform in question choosing a
>>>> unplug/replug for suspend/resume instead of having a proper USB
>>>> suspend and resume handling. That is pretty much out of our
>>>> control.
>
> Actually one can do something about this. I mean, one _can_ implement
> proper USB suspend and resume handling in the Bluetooth driver. At
> this point the details aren't clear to me, but perhaps if the driver in
> question had a reset_resume callback then it might work better.
the btusb.ko driver has suspend/resume support. Are you saying we also need reset_resume support?
>>>> I would rather have the USB subsystem delay the probe()
>>>> callback if we tell it to.
>
> This is possible. I am not sure it would be the right thing to do,
> though. What happens if the probe routine gets called early on during
> the boot-up procedure, before userspace is up and running? The same
> thing should happen here.
For modules this will be hard. Since you need userspace before being able to load the modules. If built-in code, then in theory this might be possible. Depending on the order of the init sections.
>>>> Of just have request_firmware()
>>>> actually sleep until userspace is ready. Seriously, why is
>>>> request_firmware not just sleeping for us.
>
> It won't work. The request_firmware call is part of the probe
> sequence, which in turn is part of the resume sequence. Userspace
> doesn't start running again until the resume sequence is finished. If
> request_firmware waited for userspace, it would hang.
Then I really have no idea on how to solve this unless we silence the warning from request_firmware. From a driver perspective we go back trough probe(). So the driver has to treat this as a new device.
Regards
Marcel
--
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