2022-12-14 07:58:09

by Puma Hsu

Subject: [PATCH 0/2] add vendor hooks for usb suspend and resume

In mobile, a co-processor can be used for USB audio. When the co-processor
is working for USB audio, the co-processor is the user/owner of the USB
driver, and the ACPU is able to sleep in such condition to improve power
consumption. In order to support this, we need to create vendor hooks in
suspend and resume functions, and also upload our implementations for
reference.

Puma Hsu (2):
usb: core: add vendor hook for usb suspend and resume
usb: core: add implementations for usb suspend/resume hooks

drivers/usb/core/Makefile | 2 +-
drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 36 +++++++++++++
drivers/usb/core/usb-hooks-impl-goog.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/usb/core/usb.h | 5 ++
4 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/usb/core/usb-hooks-impl-goog.c

--
2.39.0.rc1.256.g54fd8350bd-goog

2022-12-14 09:08:12

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] add vendor hooks for usb suspend and resume

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 03:06:48PM +0800, Puma Hsu wrote:
> In mobile, a co-processor can be used for USB audio. When the co-processor
> is working for USB audio, the co-processor is the user/owner of the USB
> driver, and the ACPU is able to sleep in such condition to improve power
> consumption. In order to support this, we need to create vendor hooks in
> suspend and resume functions, and also upload our implementations for
> reference.
>
> Puma Hsu (2):
> usb: core: add vendor hook for usb suspend and resume
> usb: core: add implementations for usb suspend/resume hooks
>
> drivers/usb/core/Makefile | 2 +-
> drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 36 +++++++++++++
> drivers/usb/core/usb-hooks-impl-goog.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/usb/core/usb.h | 5 ++
> 4 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/usb/core/usb-hooks-impl-goog.c
>
> --
> 2.39.0.rc1.256.g54fd8350bd-goog
>

What differs from the previous submissions of this patch series that
were rejected? Were the changes that were asked for from those
submissions resolved properly here?

Dropping patches on us every 6 months that were previously rejected with
no description of what changed is a sure way to get them rejected again
:(

thanks,

greg k-h