On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 11:06:41AM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2025, Keith Busch wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:41:33PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:40:10AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > > > > > > > No. I'm dealing with new devices being actively developed, with new ones > > > > coming out every year, so a quirk list would just be never ending > > > > maintenance pain point. > > > > > > Sounds like you have a lot of devices behaving this way. So can't you quirk them > > > based on VID and CLASS? > > > > What I mean by active development is that the timeout continues to be a > > moving target. A quirk only gives me a fixed value, but I need a > > modifiable one without having to recompile the kernel. > > Hi, > > Doesn't DRS/FRS address this such way that the device can tell when it's > ready? So perhaps check if DRS/FRS is supported and only then make the > timeout like really large? Even if the kernel supported that, you'd still need an arbitrary timeout in order to make forward progress in case the device never becomes ready.
