From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965290AbVLRWKa (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:10:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965292AbVLRWKa (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:10:30 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:34727 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965290AbVLRWK3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:10:29 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:50:51 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Alan Stern , David Brownell , Linux Kernel list Subject: Re: USB rejecting sleep Message-ID: <20051218215051.GA18257@kroah.com> References: <1134937642.6102.85.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1134937642.6102.85.camel@gaston> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:27:21AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Hi David, Alan ! > > What exactly changed in the recent USB stacks that is causing it to > abort system suspend much more often ? I'm getting lots of user reports > with 2.6.15-rc5 saying that they can't put their internal laptops to > sleep, apparently because a driver doesn't have a suspend method > (internal bluetooth in this case). > > It's never been mandatory so far for all drivers of all connected > devices to have a suspend method... didn't we decide back then that > disconneting those was the right way to go ? Yes it is, and I have a patch in my tree now that fixes this up and keeps the suspend process working properly for usb drivers that do not have a suspend function. Hm, I wonder if it should go in for 2.6.15? thanks, greg k-h