[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAODwPW-O8g+X8wiPH=m8q+BR1-V36dcgykM12DofiXZMU=9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:06:29 -0700
From: Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
John Youn <johnyoun@...opsys.com>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Zhong <zyw@...k-chips.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>,
Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
Alexandru Stan <amstan@...omium.org>, lyz <lyz@...k-chips.com>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REPOST PATCH 3/3] USB: dwc2: Don't turn off the usbphy in
suspend if wakeup is enabled
> Doug, how would you feel about reworking the patch that exports
> usb_wakeup_enabled_descendants()? Instead of doing it that way, create
> and export a new subroutine in hcd.c called
> usb_hcd_wakeup_not_needed(), or something similar.
We have a use case with another host controller (Tegra, which I think
is still in the process of being upstreamed) where we are able to
power down PHYs (and thus reduce power consumption) per port. I think
we should prefer the more flexible 'number of wake devices in subtree'
interface to be able to support cases like that. (And for the simple
case, 'if (usb_hcd_wakeup_not_needed(hcd))' and 'if
(!usb_wakeup_enabled_descendants(hcd->self.root_hub))' look pretty
similar anyway.)
--
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