On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 12:25:30AM +0300, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote: > On 09/01/2013 06:04 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 02:56:42AM +0200, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote: > >> > >>Martin MOKREJŠ wrote: > >>>Hi Xenia, > >>> I tried these 3 patches and ... I will rather leave it up to you to > >>> decide > >>>if everything went right. Attached is a diff of dmesg from unpatched and > >>>patched > >>>3.10.9 kernel. USB3 devices were connected before cold bootup, sadly in > >>>latter test > >>>the ordering changed a bit so that added to the length of the diff. Can't > >>>say > >>>what those Prolific-related messages mean. Just in case you need more info > >>>I attach "lsub -v" as well. > >>One more addition. When I disconnected the external hard drives from the > >>external > >>HUB I got: > >> > >>[ 1677.615301] usb 4-1.1: USB disconnect, device number 4 > >>[ 1677.619345] usb 4-1.1: Set SEL for device-initiated U1 failed. > >>[ 1677.619369] usb 4-1.1: Set SEL for device-initiated U2 failed. > >I'm seeing these on the 3.10 kernels, and it's really starting to annoy > >me... > > > >greg k-h > > I think this message is generated because usb_disable_device() calls > usb_enable_lpm() (through a call to usb_disable_lpm()) that submits > a USB_REQ_SET_SEL request to the device which fails since the device > state has been already set (before the call to usb_disable_device()) > to the NOTATTACHED state. So maybe we should not call > usb_disable_lpm() if the device is not attached.
That makes sense to me or have the function itself test if the device is connected or not. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
