[PATCH] Driver core: don't initialize wakeup flags

[PATCH] Driver core: don't initialize wakeup flags

[Alan Stern]

This patch (as1351) removes an unnecessary and unwanted assignment
from device_initialize().  The wakeup flags are set to 0 along with
everything else when the device structure is allocated, so we don't
need to do it again.  Furthermore, the subsystem might already have
set these flags to their correct values; we don't want to override it.

Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>

---

Index: usb-2.6/drivers/base/core.c
===================================================================
--- usb-2.6.orig/drivers/base/core.c
+++ usb-2.6/drivers/base/core.c
@@ -561,7 +561,6 @@ void device_initialize(struct device *de
 	mutex_init(&dev->mutex);
 	spin_lock_init(&dev->devres_lock);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->devres_head);
-	device_init_wakeup(dev, 0);
 	device_pm_init(dev);
 	set_dev_node(dev, -1);
 }

Re: [PATCH] Driver core: don't initialize wakeup flags

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> This patch (as1351) removes an unnecessary and unwanted assignment
> from device_initialize().  The wakeup flags are set to 0 along with
> everything else when the device structure is allocated, so we don't
> need to do it again.  Furthermore, the subsystem might already have
> set these flags to their correct values; we don't want to override it.

Does this solve a bug where a subsystem does do this already?  Or can it
wait for 2.6.35?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] Driver core: don't initialize wakeup flags

[Alan Stern]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Greg KH wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > This patch (as1351) removes an unnecessary and unwanted assignment
> > from device_initialize().  The wakeup flags are set to 0 along with
> > everything else when the device structure is allocated, so we don't
> > need to do it again.  Furthermore, the subsystem might already have
> > set these flags to their correct values; we don't want to override it.
> 
> Does this solve a bug where a subsystem does do this already?  Or can it
> wait for 2.6.35?

It does not fix any existing bugs.

On the other hand, I have just submitted a separate patch adding 
remote-wakeup support for PNP devices (i8042 keyboard ports in 
particular) that depends on this one.  If you consider not waking up 
from suspend when keys are typed to be a bug, then the two patches 
together (plus a third that enables remote wakeup for the keyboard 
port by default) would count as a bug fix.

Or to put it differently, I'm waffling.  :-)

Alan Stern