From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751073AbVLZJPz (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:15:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751074AbVLZJPz (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:15:55 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:53515 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751071AbVLZJPz (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:15:55 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:02:44 +0000 From: Pavel Machek To: Greg KH Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Alan Stern , David Brownell , Linux Kernel list Subject: Re: USB rejecting sleep Message-ID: <20051222160244.GA2747@ucw.cz> References: <1134937642.6102.85.camel@gaston> <20051218215051.GA18257@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051218215051.GA18257@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > What exactly changed in the recent USB stacks that is causing it to > > abort system suspend much more often ? I'm getting lots of user reports > > with 2.6.15-rc5 saying that they can't put their internal laptops to > > sleep, apparently because a driver doesn't have a suspend method > > (internal bluetooth in this case). > > > > It's never been mandatory so far for all drivers of all connected > > devices to have a suspend method... didn't we decide back then that > > disconneting those was the right way to go ? > > Yes it is, and I have a patch in my tree now that fixes this up and > keeps the suspend process working properly for usb drivers that do not > have a suspend function. > > Hm, I wonder if it should go in for 2.6.15? It would be nice to have some fixes in 2.6.15, so we are not swamped with bugreports. Its a regression after all. -- Thanks, Sharp!