Am Donnerstag 14 August 2008 17:47:02 schrieb Alan Stern: > > I don't really argue against flushing the caches. But I cannot that this would > > demand that we should implement autopsuspend for SCSI. It seems like > > overengineering to me. > > Think of it in two parts: idle-timeout detection and autosuspend. > Presumably you don't object to the idle-timeout detection (which is > needed for powering down links in general), and you don't argue against > the cache-flushing part of autosuspend. Taken together, that's about > 90% of my proposal. So what is the objectionable 10%? The core problem is that you insist on a rigid bottom-to-top flow of autosuspensions. That's good for systems like USB and PCI which are trees for PM purposes. It makes no sense for true busses with equal members on the bus. Regards Oliver _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
