On Tuesday 27 November 2012 10:30:02 Alan Stern wrote:
> I disagree. The usbfs interface is not as capable as the kernel's
> internal API; that has always been true. One of its limitations is the
> inability to request remote wakeups. We could add that to usbfs, but
> for now it isn't there.
Yes.
> If that limitation means the buggy modem will crash whenever it is
> being driven by a user program and the system suspends, so be it. We
As far as the device is under control of usbfs that is a defensible viewpoint.
> shouldn't expect the kernel to work around hardware bugs when the
> device in question isn't even under the control of a kernel driver.
That is not a position that is useful. In particular there's necessarily
(if you use a modular kernel) a window where a device is configured
due to the kernel's action, but not yet bound to a driver. We'd crash the
device if we go to a system suspend then. That is no good and one more
reason this must be handled in usbcore, not in cdc-acm.
Regards
Oliver
--
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
