Ming Lei <[email protected]> writes:
> Here is one link I found:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=132557022902261&w=2
Thanks. This section caught my eye:
"The USB suspend/resume code is full of those crazy "let's use one
function, and pass it as an *argument* what to do". It's a disease.
The PM layer used to do the same thing (PMSG_xyz crap), and we've
largely gotten rid of it, but USB still plays around with those things
and makes it even *worse* exactly with these kinds of
"do_unbind_rebind()" routines that then look at the argument instead
of having a sane routine for unbinding and another sane routine for
re-binding."
I take that as supporting my view on all the "if (PMSG_IS_AUTO(msg)"
testing...
But I don't have any ideas on how to fix it now that you all have spoon
fed me the background.
> IMO, we unbind interface which hasn't suspend/resume callback
> during suspend because there is no better way to handle the case.
> But for the suspend failure case, maybe rebind isn't necessary, and
> we can document that drivers have to handle their system suspend
> failure in resume(), where it is very suitable to do PM recovery.
Yup, agreed, although I fear that if Alan's commit messages are confused
then I unable explain anything like this ;)
> Also we may store the failure code into usb_interface, and let
> USB core check if the suspend failure has been handled/cleared
> after resume().
That sounds unnecessarily complicated. Let the driver deal with
it, keeping the API as simple as possible.
Bjørn
--
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
