From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [rft]power management for usbtouch Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:52:38 +0200 Message-ID: <200806281252.39386.oliver@neukum.org> References: <200806261557.19095.oliver@neukum.org> <200806272257.41319.oliver@neukum.org> <20080627212830.GJ19430@sci.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp-out003.kontent.com ([81.88.40.217]:55492 "EHLO smtp-out003.kontent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754660AbYF1KwL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:52:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080627212830.GJ19430@sci.fi> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Ville =?iso-8859-1?q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= Cc: daniel.ritz@gmx.ch, Dmitry Torokhov , Jiri Kosina , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org Am Freitag 27 Juni 2008 23:28:30 schrieb Ville Syrj=E4l=E4: > > > Which will also fail the open() itself. Isn't that bad? That is, = you can > > > suspend an already open device without the users the device notic= ing > > > but you can't open it if you happen to suspend it at just the rig= ht time. > > > That doesn't strike me as good behaviour for a driver. > >=20 > > Root can also unbind the driver. >=20 > Sure, but in that case the behavior is consistent ie. the device > disappears. Sorry, I chose a bad example. Root can do stupid things like sending control requests that change the configuration, setting or address of a device. The effects are undefined and will differ from driver to driv= er and open or closedness. =46orcibly suspending a device is a testing feature. If root abuses it, he'll have to take the consequences. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html