On Tuesday 26 April 2005 11:55 pm, Olav Kongas wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Actually it probably will. That might be a good reason to keep a minimal > > auto-suspend capability in the HCDs, for use when CONFIG_PM is off. > > Why should USB core's auto-suspend depend on CONFIG_PM? In > particular, if this results in (at least partial) > duplication of the auto-suspend functionality in HCDs. It could be argued two different ways: that "hub autosuspend" should exist in usbcore, and cover root hubs; or alternatively that drivers should handle their own suspend logic, and so root hub autosuspend should continue to driven by the HCDs. It'd also be easy to argue that without CONFIG_PM there's no need for any autosuspend ... For now, without a hub autosuspend in usbcore, there's really no better place for it than in the HCDs. In the (not-so?) misty future where there is some usbcore hub autosuspend code, I rather suspect it'd make more sense to have it be utility code that HCDs can use as needed ... than to invert the current control relationship. But we'd have to see that code first. - Dave ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans! Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
