Hi, On 2/28/22 22:33, Mario Limonciello wrote: > As the default low power policy applies to more chipsets and drives, it's > important to make sure that drives actually support the policy that a user > selected in their kernel configuration. > > If the drive doesn't support slumber, don't let the default policies > dependent upon slumber (`min_power` or `min_power_with_partial`) affect the > disk. > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> > --- > Changes from RFC v1 -> PATCH v1: > * Move the warning and protection from drives that don't support slumber further > into the calling path. > drivers/ata/libahci.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci.c b/drivers/ata/libahci.c > index 0ed484e04fd6..9dee721ed1fe 100644 > --- a/drivers/ata/libahci.c > +++ b/drivers/ata/libahci.c > @@ -785,7 +785,15 @@ static int ahci_set_lpm(struct ata_link *link, enum ata_lpm_policy policy, > pp->intr_mask &= ~PORT_IRQ_PHYRDY; > writel(pp->intr_mask, port_mmio + PORT_IRQ_MASK); > > - sata_link_scr_lpm(link, policy, false); > + if (policy >= ATA_LPM_MIN_POWER_WITH_PARTIAL && > + !(hpriv->cap & HOST_CAP_SSC)) { > + struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(ap->host->dev); > + > + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, > + "This drive doesn't support slumber; ignoring SATA policy\n"); Not sure if completely ignoring the policy here is a good idea. IMHO it would be better to fallback to MED_POWER_WITH_DIPM at least for the haswell - skylake(++++) generations having MED_POWER_WITH_DIPM is important to allow the package to go the higher PC states. > + } else { > + sata_link_scr_lpm(link, policy, false); > + } > } > > if (hpriv->cap & HOST_CAP_ALPM) { Regards, Hans