On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Franck wrote: > > > Hi Alan, > > > > 2005/12/15, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > No, the bus should already be suspended. In fact, you should fail the > > > driver-suspend request if the bus isn't already suspended. > > > > hmm I think so but I don't see this behaviour in isp116 or sl811 hcds. > > The former do actually nothing, even if the bus is not suspended, the > > later does a bus_suspend which does nothing. > > The last time I looked, isp116x didn't support suspend/resume at all. > Maybe Olav has made some changes since then. And it wouldn't be > surprising to learn that sl811 is somewhat out-of-date also. Leaving out port suspends, the isp116x has the following suspends: - bus_suspend(). If remote wakeup support is disabled then suspending USB bus stops also chip's clock. If remote wakeup is supported then clock will stay on. - HC suspend. If remote wakeup support is disabled then there's really nothing more to do as clock is already stopped (*). If remote wakeup support is enabled then HC suspend method is the proper place to disable remote wakeup, right? Olav (*) There's also a deep sleep mode of the chip, but as I have no proper platform to implement and test it, let's forget it for now. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
