Re: Patches still in the queue
Oliver Neukum <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2007 16:16 schrieb Alan Stern: > > Well, we have again a distinction between device and interface > > persistance. Some drivers and therefore interfaces will be unable > > to support persistance. It must be possible to resurrect only some > > interfaces of a device. > > In other words, it must be possible for a driver's post_reset() method > to fail. That's a separate email thread. Worse. A driver may _lack_ a post_reset() method. > > On the core side persistance is asked for if a devices's interface or > > a device lower in the tree want persistance. > > > > > While a per-device flag might be workable, I think the most > > > straightforward approach is a single system-wide On/Off setting. > > > > Why? Treating a hard drive differently than a floppy seems very > > reasonable to me. > > Maybe so, but you're putting a burden on both the core and the user. The > core would have to check, when resuming a hub, whether _any_ of the hub's > descendants want to be persistent. It can be done but it's messy. And > then the user has to decide, for every device that gets attached, whether > or not it should be persistent. It is the same tree logic used to decide whether a hub can be suspended. I suggest solving it the same way. This feature _is_ dangerous. Regards Oliver ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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