[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bff20a7-8eb8-276a-086e-f1729fbbdbe4@microchip.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:33:14 +0000
From: <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>
To: <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC: <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>,
<Cristian.Birsan@...rochip.com>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: host: ohci-at91: suspend/resume ports after/before
OHCI accesses
On 23.06.2021 17:19, Alan Stern wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:09:16PM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>> On 23.06.2021 16:59, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> One thing you might consider changing: The name of the
>>> ohci_at91_port_suspend routine is misleading. It doesn't really
>>> handle suspending the port; instead it handles the clocks that drive
>>> the entire OHCI controller. Right?
>>
>> It does both as far as I can tell at the moment.
>
> But the name suggests that it only handles suspending a port. That's
> misleading.
>
> And the way it is used in the SetPortFeature(USB_PORT_FEAT_SUSPEND)
> case in ohci_at91_hub_control is just plain wrong. It won't merely
> suspend a single port; it will disable the entire OHCI controller.
Agree with all the above!
>
> Alan Stern
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists