From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932640AbWJIP4R (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:56:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932569AbWJIP4R (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:56:17 -0400 Received: from smtp106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.205]:2425 "HELO smtp106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932640AbWJIP4Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:56:16 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=huk0eYSV4caqF9EW0R0sczBdTbKqTgaCE8Skqqx01E4/BpdDzHHDnKJtaU+KEHAnBZSMNO7sBJua4aKRefYPqhlhftr8rIrYm/pXtyU6jELpUo13q4feYgi/TZorwx48xVWK/GEj0myzPCaVjN02Sl85WFtSjqIqBOu0iDi+VIA= ; From: David Brownell To: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] error to be returned while suspended Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 08:56:08 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: Pavel Machek , Alan Stern , linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200610071703.24599.david-b@pacbell.net> <200610080840.59432.oliver@neukum.org> In-Reply-To: <200610080840.59432.oliver@neukum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610090856.09776.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 07 October 2006 11:40 pm, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Sonntag, 8. Oktober 2006 02:03 schrieben Sie: > > On Saturday 07 October 2006 10:16 am, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > > > I dare say that the commonest scenario involving USB is a laptop with > > > > > an input device attached. Input devices are for practical purposes always > > > > > opened. A simple resume upon open and suspend upon close is useless. > > > > That is, the standard model is useless?  I think you've made > > a few strange leaps of logic there ... care to fill in those > > gaps and explain just _why_ that standard model is "useless"??? > > If a device is always opened, as mice are, it will not be suspended. Of course it wiill be suspended, as part of system-wide suspend. That's the standard model. > Yet they can be without any data to deliver forever.