On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 14 June 2006 12:25 pm, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, David Brownell wrote: > > > > > > 9. Tie together suspend/resume operations on a device and on its > > > > interfaces. > > > > > > Another way to put this is that you've reverted some of the changes > > > from patch seven-of-nine. Any chance of not actually making those > > > changes in the first place, and thereby simplifying both patches? > > > Or maybe just re-ordering things so this goes first. > > > > Although you might think of this patch in that way, it's not really a > > reversion. > > In terms of functionality, it is. You were talking about the code > more than the functionality.
Since the code gets moved from one routine to another, it's not possible to simplify either patch. Even by reordering them. The only alternative I can see is to merge the two patches. I'm not averse to this, although people generally advise splitting patches apart, not combining them. ... > > That's not a bad idea, although right now it would be redundant. Fodder > > for a later patch... > > Just watching for interesting opportunities as you throw > out ideas about what needs to change! ;) > > In this case, thinking about what should should replace those > bogus power/state files. Maybe a "usb_device_driver" would also > be able to associate its own power governor, to help throttle > down VBUS current usage differently on laptops (be clever) > vs desktops (dumb is safest). Keep those cards and letters coming! :-) Alan Stern _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
