Am Sonntag, 25. Februar 2007 23:43 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > Am Sonntag, 25. Februar 2007 17:43 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > >
> > > > Coming to think of it, maybe the confusion could be avoided, if
> > > > zero were accepted as a permissible value for autosuspend delay.
> > > > Is there a reason there has to be a delay?
> > >
> > > Yes. It's a bad idea to in general to disable any resource as soon as
> > > you
> > > are through using it, if enabling and disabling take a nontrivial amount
> > > of time.
> >
> > This is true. Is that a reason to disallow it? We generally don't protect
> > people from themselves in kernel space.
>
> It just doesn't seem like a useful capability. What harm will it do to
> suspend a USB device after 1 second rather than right away? It's hard to
What harm will the opposite do? User settings exist to let the user do
as he pleases. Embedded people would use it.
> imagine a situation where you would really want to do that.
>
> In addition it gives us a useful way to represent no autosuspend (although
> I suppose we could use negative delay values for that purpose).
We shouldn't. The clean way to do this is to have a boolean setting.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
