Heiner Kallweit wrote on 5/12/19 9:03 AM:
On 12.05.2019 03:02, Frederick Lawler wrote:
Evening,
Heiner Kallweit wrote on 5/11/19 10:33 AM:> +static ssize_t aspm_disable_link_state_show(struct device *dev,
[..]
Since we're introducing a new sysfs interface, would it be more appropriate to rename the sysfs files to aspm_set_link_state (or something to that effect)?
The syntax as it stands, means that to enable a state, a double negative must be used:
echo "-L1.1" > ./aspm_disable_link_state"
vs
echo "+L1.1" > ./aspm_set_link_state
If we avoid the double negative, the documentation about to be written will be more clear and use of the sysfs file will be more intuitive.
In addition to these more formal parts: Can you test the functionality?
I don't have enough hardware to fully test things out. I just have 1
device with ASPM support and no switches.
I'll have a go tonight with the v3 patches and report back.
Thanks,
Frederick Lawler
Heiner
Frederick Lawler
