[PATCH 1/2] gpio-vbus: support disabling D+ pullup on suspend
peter.chen at freescale.com
Mon Jun 27 22:41:25 EDT 2011
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:26:09AM +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 05:19 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:02:27AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> >>No, the patch is appropriate.
> >>We don't need better communication. If g_mass_storage (for example)
> >>knows that the device is in use, it can block suspends by returning
> >>-EBUSY from its own suspend callback. The UDC driver doesn't need to
> >>worry about these matters; it should assume that such things have
> >>already been handled elsewhere. That's what Dmitry meant when he was
> >>talking about a "higher level driver" -- maybe "lower level" would have
> >>been a better choice of words. :-)
> The suspend at driver level should not care about filesystem in use,
> etc ... A disconnected cable cannot be prevented by the kernel, and
> the effect in fine is the same as the suspend.
> >>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)
I think Dmitry's patch is for this system suspend, and less power consumption
is very important for system design, esp for embedded device.
> (2) USB suspend (which if I remember correctly is a special USB
> command while the USB bus remains powered).
This suspend is USB suspend in USB 2.0 spec, it is usually triggered by
Usb controller after bus idle 3ms. It should not disable D+ pull-up, or
the bus will not be J, and the host will think the device has disconnected.
> 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 ?
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the linux-arm-kernel