On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 10:56 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 10:15 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > And even if there is a pending reset, all that will happen is the reset
> > > will cause the port to power up again, and then the reset will occur.
> >
> > If and only if the port is still unpowered.
>
> If the port is powered, then:
>
> If the device is runtime-suspended, it will be resumed.
>
> The reset will occur normally.
>
> Perhaps the device will be runtime suspended again.
>
> What's the problem?
We are doing a superfluous reset. Resets are not good.
The normal operation of the device is interrupted.
Any unnecessary reset should be avoided.
> > > If you think it would help, the runtime suspend code could be changed
> > > to prevent suspends if any queued resets are pending.
> >
> > If error handling requires a reset, there's no special likelihood that
> > suspend will clear up the issue. It is specific to port power off.
>
> I don't understand what you mean. Neither suspend nor port power-off
> is meant for handling errors. We use resets for that purpose.
That was the intention. Yet if a power cycle doesn't do the job,
a reset won't do it either.
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
