[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:12:35 +0100
From: Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Maciej J. Woloszyk" <mat@....com.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI / PM: Use per-device D3 delays
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 07:55:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 01 January 2010, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While the bug report mentions "So it's just quirky hardware.",
> > the implementation of your patch makes it seem like this delay attribute is
> > totally "norm"al behaviour - I'm missing some more aggressive wording.
>
> That's because it works both ways (please look at the changelog).
Ah, ok.
> I know of a few devices that don't need the PCI-prescribed 10 ms wait when
> going from D3 to D0 and their drivers may use the d3_delay field to actually
> set a _shorter_ delay.
Then why is the value lower-bounded by pci_pm_d3_delay
(which, puzzlingly, was initialized to PCI_PM_D3_WAIT and thus 10
before, which the patch now removes!), in pci_dev_d3_sleep()?
(and pci_pm_d3_delay is being quirked in drivers/pci/quirks.c only,
to 120)
Confused,
Andreas Mohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists