From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [linux-pm] wacom + runtime PM = AA deadlock Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:03:59 +0200 Message-ID: <201009141603.59338.oneukum@suse.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41857 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284Ab0INOD2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:03:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Jiri Slaby , Dmitry Torokhov , pingc@wacom.com, linux-pm , Linux kernel mailing list , linux-input@vger.kernel.org Am Dienstag, 14. September 2010, 16:01:14 schrieb Alan Stern: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Montag, 13. September 2010, 22:02:16 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > > > Is there any point in resuming the device during close() just in order > > > > > to kill the interrupt URB? It seems counterproductive -- if the device > > > > > had been suspended then there wouldn't be any interrupt URB to kill in > > > > > the first place. > > > > > > > > Suppose the device does not support remote wakeup. It would never > > > > be autosuspended while it is open, but simply resetting the flag > > > > would never reach the PM layer. > > > > > > Whoops, that's right. I didn't see the assignment to > > > needs_remote_wakeup. > > > > Should I have used usb_autopm_get_interface_no_resume()? > > That actually would work. It's a good idea. The only drawback (not a > big one) is that if the device _was_ suspended with remote wakeup > enabled, doing this wouldn't turn off remote wakeup. I think that > doesn't matter. I am afraid it does matter as devices whose remote wakeup is enabled may draw more power. Regards Oliver