On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:15:44 +0900 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Moving the base accounting logic to libata wasn't too painful (see > > the patch); moving this very driver specific logic gets a much more > > intertwigned relationship that at this point in time is just > > overkill. If someone comes around with a driver that also need it, > > can we just please resolve it at that time? > > I don't know. On PM front, it's true that ahci is way more important > than others. Implementing things just for ahci has been happening for > some time now and in the long run it's just not healthy. It lowers > maintainability and may even hinder generic implementation. In this > case, for example, you're associating link power management with the > host port, not the link. Your specific case may be fine but what > about DIPM on devices attached via PMP? Internal implementation is > one thing but you're adding externally visible attribute to the host > part. This one thing might be fine but we can't allow things like > this to pile up. sigh. so I moved all the generic logic generic, and left the ahci specific code specific to ahci. I put the logic there where it was easy to implement, and there where the other link power management controls are (in sysfs). If that's not good enough, I'm out of my skills in the libata world to be honest, and would like to ask you to implement that instead. let me know what sysfs looks like and I'll adjust powertop to it.... -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
