From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] input: Fix USB autosuspend on bcm5974 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:38:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20111010143802.GA18364@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1318254086-22752-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <201110101606.37878.oneukum@suse.de> <20111010141635.GA17889@srcf.ucam.org> <201110101634.39018.oneukum@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:36300 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754210Ab1JJOiF (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:38:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201110101634.39018.oneukum@suse.de> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, rydberg@euromail.se, dtor@mail.ru On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:34:38PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2011, 16:16:35 schrieb Matthew Garrett: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:06:37PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > This is odd, because the hardware shouldn't generate remote wakeups unless you > > > request them, like this (usbhid) > > > > I thought needs_remote_wakeup was a hint to the kernel that remote > > wakeup ability was required for the hardware to autosuspend? In theory I > > It fulfills that role, but it is not its sole function. > > > guess it should be set, but in practice all the hardware supported by > > this driver generates them so it'd be a noop. No objection to adding it > > in the name of correctness (or if some future version is broken, I > > guess...), though. > > It is used in usb_port_suspend in form of do_remote_wakeup which > is computed from it. And we send a real control message. do_remote_wakeup will be set if device_may_wakeup is true, regardless of whether the driver asks for it. Or am I misreading choose_wakeup()? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org