On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 02:48:30PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Friday 08 February 2008, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > Ah, I see why you would want to turn off remote wakeup on those ports. > > However, > > I don't see that function actually does what the comment says. AFAIK, > > writing > > 1 to the registers represented by PORT_RWC_BITS only clears the port status > > bits > > related to current port events. It doesn't stop new events from being > > interpreted as remote wakeup events in the future. > > If the root hub *does* support power switching, writing just PORT_RWC_BITS > disables power ...
Oh, right. I was looking at just those bits in the PORT_RWC_BITS mask and not looking at the effects of writing zeros to the other bits in the port control register. > > You would have to clear the > > PORT_WK* bits to turn off remote wakeup for a port. Am I misreading > > something? > > > > It doesn't matter much, since the fix worked, but it was very confusing to > > compare the ehci_turn_off_all_ports() and ehci_port_power(). > > Were you going to develop a patch to resolve those issues? I'm working on a patch to share code between ehci_stop() and ehci_shutdown() with the changes we discussed. I just wanted to understand what was going on in both functions before I started changing things. Sarah - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
