[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5745EC95.1020506@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:19:01 -0400
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Ocean HY1 He <hehy1@...ovo.com>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"wangyijing@...wei.com" <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"prarit@...hat.com" <prarit@...hat.com>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
Nagananda Chumbalkar <nchumbalkar@...ovo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/ASPM: fix reverse ASPM L0s assignment of upstream and
downstream
On 5/25/2016 1:50 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> > You are saying that it is OK to enable L0s on just one side of the
>> > link as long as both sides support L0s.
> I'm not sure what you mean by the link parameters not being
> compatible, but I think it is legal to enable L0s on only one
> direction.
I'm talking about L0s acceptable and entry latency times used to
determine when L0s can be enabled.
>
>> > This part is a little bit misleading. I had HW people telling me
>> > that both sides need to enable L0s at about the same time.
> I don't remember seeing anything like that in the spec. Do they have
> a pointer? "At about the same time" is too hand-wavey to be useful to
> software.
>
OK. Let me do some more push back. I wanted to understand the OS
behavior and its reasoning.
Your answers are sufficient.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists