linux-kernel - Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH v3] ath5k: disable ASPM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:31:28 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	"ath5k-devel@...ts.ath5k.org" <ath5k-devel@...ts.ath5k.org>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Quan <David.Quan@...eros.com>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...badil.infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com" <kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com>,
	Luis Rodriguez <Luis.Rodriguez@...eros.com>,
	Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@...et.fi>,
	"tim.gardner@...onical.com" <tim.gardner@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH v3] ath5k: disable ASPM

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 03:26:37PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> What I meant was that the PCI config space would already have L1
>> enabled if L1 worked, so I don't see why we would need to nitpick out
>> specifics here. All Atheros PCIE chips should work with L1. The advise
>> given is to disable L0s though. I believe AR2425 would be one which
>> likely had L0s enabled but requires it to be disabled. Not sure of
>> others. But this is why I am saying this can be done globally for all
>> ath5k chipsets.
>
> If L1 is set but the chip is pre-PCIe 1.1 then we'll disable L1 unless
> the driver tells us that it's functional. The .inf from the Windows
> driver seemed to suggest that only a subset of the chips re-enabled L1
> there, but if it's ok in general then that's a straightforward one-line
> patch.

But why can't we just rely on what the device already has on its PCI
config space and only ensure to disable L0s?

  Luis
--
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/