From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753128Ab0INIMu (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:12:50 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:52352 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752328Ab0INIMt (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:12:49 -0400 From: Oliver Neukum To: Alan Stern Subject: Re: [linux-pm] wacom + runtime PM = AA deadlock Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:13:19 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.34-12-desktop; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Jiri Slaby , Dmitry Torokhov , pingc@wacom.com, "linux-pm" , Linux kernel mailing list , linux-input@vger.kernel.org References: In-Reply-To: Organization: SUSE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201009141013.19704.oneukum@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 13. September 2010, 22:02:16 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > Is there any point in resuming the device during close() just in order > > > to kill the interrupt URB? It seems counterproductive -- if the device > > > had been suspended then there wouldn't be any interrupt URB to kill in > > > the first place. > > > > Suppose the device does not support remote wakeup. It would never > > be autosuspended while it is open, but simply resetting the flag > > would never reach the PM layer. > > Whoops, that's right. I didn't see the assignment to > needs_remote_wakeup. Should I have used usb_autopm_get_interface_no_resume()? Regards Oliver