[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090215193037.3e3ebeab@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:30:37 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
"Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com>,
Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:23:41 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 18:20 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > what this needs is a separation between "interface down, all off"
> > and "interface down enough so that link detection works".
> > Some NICs can go all the way down and still do link detection,
> > others cannot. This is obviously something the driver will know,
> > nothing else in the system should know.
>
> Sure, my point was just that the driver cannot make the decision to go
> all-off (and thus not detect link) without some kind of user setting
> allowing it to do so.
to a very large degree, "want linkdetection" is a form of keeping the
device open.. even if the current code doesn't quite work that way
(maybe it should)
--
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-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