Re: [patch]another quirky device

Hi Oliver,

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:37:46 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Sonntag 19 August 2007 schrieb Jean Delvare:
> > On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:14:34 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/core/quirks.c	2007-08-19 17:10:04.000000000 +0200
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/quirks.c	2007-08-19 17:12:51.000000000 +0200
> > > @@ -68,12 +68,14 @@ static const struct usb_device_id usb_qu
> > >  	{ USB_DEVICE(0x05d8, 0x4005), .driver_info = USB_QUIRK_NO_AUTOSUSPEND },
> > >  	/* Agfa Snapscan1212u */
> > >  	{ USB_DEVICE(0x06bd, 0x2061), .driver_info = USB_QUIRK_NO_AUTOSUSPEND },
> > > +	/* Seagate RSS LLC */
> > > +	{ USB_DEVICE(0x0bc2, 0x3000), .driver_info = USB_QUIRK_NO_AUTOSUSPEND },
> > 
> > Yes, this fixes my problem too. However I am surprised that the
> > "autosuspend" file in sysfs still reads "2" for the Seagate drive with
> > this patch applied. Shouldn't it read "0" now that autosuspend is
> > disabled?
> 
> No, as you can switch on autosuspend manually and you definitely do not
> want a timeout of 0 unless you explicitely order it.

Hmm, maybe my question wasn't totally clear, let me rephrase. Shouldn't
sysfs reflect the fact that autosuspend is disabled for my device
somehow? When I read "2" from the autosuspend file, it gives me the
impression that autosuspend is enabled, and I think it's confusing.

(I thought that an autosuspend value of 0 meant that autosuspend was
disabled, but your reply make me understand that this isn't the case.
Sorry for the confusion.)

-- 
Jean Delvare

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel