[PATCH 1/2] gpio-vbus: support disabling D+ pullup on suspend
dbaryshkov at gmail.com
Sat Jun 25 06:33:56 EDT 2011
On 6/25/11, Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik at free.fr> wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 05:19 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:02:27AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> Until recently, ordering of the suspend callbacks didn't present any
>>> problem. The gadget device was a child of the UDC device and therefore
>>> its suspend callback would always be invoked first.
>>> With the new UDC framework, I don't know if this is true any more.
>>> It's something to consider.
> That true also for the UDC driver, which should be suspended before the
> transciever, so that it can complete its shutdown properly.
> That's what bothers me with the patch.
> And we should not confuse the 2 suspends :
> (1) driver suspend, which happens at suspendToRam or suspendToDisk
> (the one we're discussing here)
> (2) USB suspend (which if I remember correctly is a special USB
> command while the USB bus remains powered).
> The order of suspend in (1) requires :
> - gadget (gzero, gether, ...) suspended first
> - UDC suspended second
> - transceiver suspended last
> The order of suspend in (2) doesn't require anything AFAIR.
> For order in (1) :
> - gadget before UDC should be enforced by the framework, as the UDC
> usb_gadget_probe_driver() method calls device_add() on the gadget<
> - UDC before transceiver is enforced in some drivers by directly
> manipulating the gpio line.
> So Dimitry, do you have an idea as how to guarantee order of suspend in
> (1), between UDC driver and gpio_vbus ? Maybe an otg_*() call would do
> the trick ?
That is simple: UDC driver acquires transceiver via otg_*() calls, so
is already registered at the point of probing UDC. I'll check the order of calls
during suspend though.
With best wishes
More information about the linux-arm-kernel