From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Clemens Fruhwirth Subject: Re: [linux-pm] 2.6.33-rc3-git3: Reported regressions 2.6.31 -> 2.6.32 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:47:38 +0100 Message-ID: <2f83750a1001110847r2b65b433q2ff6f6714d42861a@mail.gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: Alan Stern Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Alan Stern = wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> Bug-Entry =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id= =3D14841 >> Subject =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : unable to enumerate USB device on por= t X after suspend/resume >> Submitter =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Fruhwirth Clemens >> Date =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: 2009-12-19 11:45 (23 days o= ld) > > This bug has been resolved as WILL NOT FIX. =C2=A0It ended up having = nothing > to do with suspend or resume, it was caused by strange behavior in th= e > device hardware. Should we track "automatic fallback to USB 1.1" as feature request? You already said that this isn't easily possible with the way the USB stack is structured at the moment (connect-centric-view instead of port-centric-view). However, Windows does that fallback and I'm afraid that this is the default device testing scenario. --=20 =46ruhwirth Clemens http://clemens.endorphin.org