Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] driver core: power management debugging

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2246 bytes --]

Hi.

On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 23:50 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:55:52AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 10:42 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Alan.
> > > 
> > > > Sorry. I thought you were wrong for a minute, but then I looked again at
> > > > the messages in my dmesg...
> > > > 
> > > > [   33.944214] Device driver usbdev1.1_ep00 lacks bus and class support for being resumed.
> > > > [   34.051765] Device driver usbdev1.1_ep81 lacks bus and class support for being resumed.
> > > > [   34.113740] Device driver usbdev2.1_ep00 lacks bus and class support for being resumed.
> > > > [   34.221541] Device driver usbdev2.1_ep81 lacks bus and class support for being resumed.
> > > > [   34.251562] Device driver usbdev3.1_ep00 lacks bus and class support for being resumed.
> > > > [   34.361345] Device driver usbdev3.1_ep81 lacks bus and class support for being resumed.
> > > > 
> > > > They're coming from the other printk, of course.
> > > > 
> > > > > Now perhaps you would prefer to check the USB interface drivers -- there 
> > > > > are many of them, and quite a few don't have suspend or resume methods.  
> > > > > You would need to modify usb_register_driver() instead of 
> > > > > usb_register_device_driver().
> > > > 
> > > > Would they be the ones covered above?
> > > 
> > > No.  As Greg pointed out, these usbdevXX_epYY "devices" are nothing but 
> > > placeholders at the moment.  They don't actually do anything and they have 
> > > no need for power management.  (But they do manage to clutter up the 
> > > system log with lots of extraneous warnings from the PM core...)
> > 
> > Ok, so they could have the pm_safe flag set to suppress the message.
> 
> No, we don't want a flag just to shut up a message, that's the first
> thing a developer will do when they see that message, without realizing
> what exactly they should be doing instead.
> 
> Trust me, I know the lengths kernel developers go to to try to work
> around "helpful hints" that the kernel can spit out at you :(

Ok, then. So... what would you suggest (if anything)?

Regards,

Nigel

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]