On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > If a device isn't going to be fully-suspended because there isn't an > implementation of the suspend callback, there's no need to make sure > that its parent is going to be fully-suspended as well.
What do you mean by "fully-suspended"? What if the parent has several children? Maybe some of them have implementations of the suspend callback and the others don't. Will your patch do the right thing then? > Without this change, USB interface devices will always prevent the > proper USB device to stay in runtime suspension when the system > suspends. For USB it doesn't matter; everything gets resumed when the system wakes up. > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <[email protected]> > --- > > Hi, > > I'm not sure if this is the right fix, What are you trying to fix? Is something currently wrong? > because I don't see why the USB > interface devices are in the dpm_list in the first place, so any comments will > be welcome. _Every_ device is in the dpm_list, including USB interfaces. If your goal is to prevent USB devices from being resumed when the system wakes up, then the correct approach is to make usb_dev_prepare() return 1 rather than 0 under the appropriate conditions, and to add a dev_pm_ops to the usb_if_device_type structure with a prepare callback that returns 1. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
