Re: Test Patch: 2.5.69 Interrupt Latency

[Paul Fulghum]

On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 11:41, Alan Stern wrote:
> The patch below incorporates your suggested subroutine.  That alone wasn't
> enough to prevent the state from bouncing a few times when I powered my
> USB device on or off, so the debounce code is in there too.  This patch
> behaves fine on my workstation, which has both ports connected.  I'll try
> it later on my laptop, which only has one port.
> 
> In the end, I decided it was easiest and safest to follow your "don't 
> suspend if any ports are OC" scheme.  We can try it the other way too if 
> you want.  What do you think would happen if you were to try to put your 
> machine in an APM/ACPI "suspend" state?
> 
> This is a cumulative patch, i.e., it applies to a virgin 2.5.69 source.  
> Let me know how it works for you.

Alan,

the patch applied cleanly and worked for me
(prevented global suspension). Having the lengthy
waits outside of the ISR is a definate plus, and
the debounce makes sense.

My machine does not have APM/ACPI facilities so
I can't test the suspend. It is getting pretty
dated, but the economy dictates I live with it for
a while longer :-)

Does you laptop use the PIIX4? If it does and uses only
one port, I would be very interested to see if
one port is continuously reporting OC (hardwired).

Thanks for the patch,
Paul

-- 
Paul Fulghum, [e-mail]
Microgate Corporation, http://www.microgate.com