Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 09:31:31 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     jflf_kernel@gmx.com
Cc:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: add quirks for Lenovo OneLink+ Dock
Message-ID: <Yw8OU8hYZuuBgrnj@kroah.com>
References: <20220824160946.10128-1-jflf_kernel@gmx.com>
 <31aeee3c-f4f1-16a8-272b-96da5d4a565e@suse.com>
 <d1a5f149-50a1-49fc-9a6d-eceffa23311b@gmx.com>
 <4b92eee0-b020-9211-2039-18ac3ac72a7b@suse.com>
 <edd97137-74a1-ee0b-d475-7c5b36197155@gmx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <edd97137-74a1-ee0b-d475-7c5b36197155@gmx.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:50:03PM +0200, jflf_kernel@gmx.com wrote:
> 
> On 30/08/2022 16.47, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> 
> > 1) force a reset after a resume and call reset_resume() instead of resume()
> > 2) block autosuspend if remote wakeup is required
> >
> > I suspect you are actually using the second effect. Have you
> > tested with "usbcore.autosuspend=-1" on the kernel command line.
> 
> After further testing, your suspicion is correct.
> 
> TL;DR: the two VL812 hubs don't behave well when suspended.
> 
> I'd like to prepare a better patch for that issue. What's the recommended strategy? The current patch works, even if only as a side effect and when there's a wakeup source downstream. It's currently in Greg KH's usb-linus branch, and will land in linux-next at some point. I'm tempted to let it be and undo it later in the better patch. Is that acceptable? Or should I ask Greg KH to pull it?

I can revert it if you want me to, just let me know.

thanks,

greg k-h