From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262681AbTIVAxA (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:53:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262695AbTIVAxA (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:53:00 -0400 Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net ([151.164.30.28]:1164 "EHLO mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262681AbTIVAw6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:52:58 -0400 Message-ID: <3F6E493B.7070901@pacbell.net> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:58:35 -0700 From: David Brownell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Stern CC: Greg KH , USB development list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: USB APM suspend References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Stern wrote: > Here's a piece from my system log, when I did "apm --suspend". The > usb_device_suspend/resume messages are things I added for debugging. That's progress ... last time I tried APM on 2.6 it failed horribly. (This was after working fine until recently.) > Why was this routine called twice? (Don't be fooled by the timestamps; I > think the "suspend D4 --> D3" message was created during the suspend but > not read by syslogd until after the resume.) That's happened for as long as I remember (2.4 also). Still seems buglike to me, maybe 2.6 will finally squish it... > Why doesn't usb_hcd_pci_resume() log a similar message when it is called? > A simple oversight? You mean, why didn't it announce its first resume? Basically, yes. > Why was the host controller suspended _before_ its child USB devices? Seems buglike to me, with the first call being wrong (before the children were suspended) and the second being right (after). > And why was it woken up twice? The converse of the "suspended-twice" problem: first call right, second call (after children) wrong. - Dave