Re: [rft]power management for usbtouch

["Ville Syrjälä" <syrjala-ORSVBvAovxo@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:57:01PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag 01 Juli 2008 14:56:30 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov:
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 11:08:47AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag 01 Juli 2008 09:59:01 schrieb Jiri Kosina:
> 
> > > > I really don't think we want to return error in such cases. Either resume 
> > > > the device, or queue some requests (maybe depending on the type of 
> > > > requests), right?
> > > 
> > > We are talking about forcibly suspended devices, so they cannot be
> > > resumed. We could queue, but where would we end queuing? And we
> > > have to decide to stop it at some point, or we create a DoS problem.
> > > 
> > > The user has decided to put the device in a state in which the driver
> > > cannot properly function. If the user wanted the driver to work, he should
> > > select autosuspend.
> > >
> > 
> > That is the thing with the forced suspend - it leaves device out of
> > sync with the rest of the system. If user really does not want to use
> > the device it should probably be completely disconnected?
> 
> Yes, therefore I suggested doing the logical disconnect.

Would the persistence flag affect this? That is would the forced
suspend cause a reset_resume instead if the driver supports it?

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
syrjala-ORSVBvAovxo@public.gmane.org
http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html