Hey Fabio,
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 05:27:09PM -0200, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > It also works. However I wonder if it's right that I'm spammed by
> > over-current messages now (independent of which fix I choose) as long as
> > there is something connected to the port that draws too much power:
> >
> > [ 53.406833] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition
> > [ 53.631749] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition
> > [ 53.856720] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition
> > [ 54.081732] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition
> > [ 54.306727] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition
> > [ 54.531722] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition
> > [ 54.756722] usb usb1-port1: over-current condition
> >
> > It seems to be intended or am I missing something?
>
> Does it help if you pass 'disable-over-current' property?
I assume it does, but that's not the point. It seems to work just fine,
because the messages come in iff there is an over-current condition on
that port.
I guess what is really wanted here is that the loop
start:
printk(overcurrent-event)
disable port power
sleep
enable port power
goto start
gets a bit smarter to not print the message even if the port signals a
new overcurrent event after power was reset.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
