Re: requirements for suspend()
Alan Stern <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2007 16:03 schrieb Alan Stern: > > On Thu, 3 May 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > > > How about exporting usb_disable_interface() and usb_enable_interface()? > > > > > It doesn't solve the problem for endpoint 0, but this case is rare. > > > > > > > > We could; it would save drivers the trouble of keeping track of their own > > > > URBs. Do you have a particular driver in mind for this? > > > > > > Everything derived from newer versions of the skeleton driver. > > > > Would we be better off modifying the skeleton driver to keep track of its > > own URBs? > > I am unsure. The "fire-and-forget" technique is certainly simple for > driver writers. Perhaps we should make it easier to keep track of URBs. > A list_head in the URB? People have discussed adding one in the past. Greg might have some opinions. We could export a utility routine very similar to usb_disable_interface(), the only difference being that it doesn't change the toggle values. But what happens if the driver gets unbound while the device is still suspended? Who would then re-enable the interface? We'd also have to add something to usb_probe_interface() and usb_driver_claim_interface(). Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel