[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1472839879.2754.77.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:11:19 -0700
From: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: Enable autonomous power state transitions
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * By default, allow up to 25ms of APST-induced
> > > > latency. This will
> > > > + * have no effect on non-APST supporting controllers
> > > > (i.e.
> > > > any
> > > > + * controller with APSTA == 0).
> > > > + */
> > > > + ctrl->apst_max_latency_ns = 25000000;
> > >
> > > Is it possible to make that a #define please?
> >
> > I'll make it a module parameter as Keith suggested.
>
> One question, though: should we call this and the sysfs parameter
> apst_max_latency or should it be more generically
> power_save_max_latency? The idea is that we might want to support
> non-automonous transitions some day or even runtime D3. Or maybe
> those should be separately configured if used.
I read the spec and reviewed your latest patchset. Personally for me I
like having the field names from the NVMe spec in the names of the
Linux implementation because it makes it easier to find and relate the
two. So apst_max_latency makes more sense to me, as this is a
'apst'(e/a) NVMe feature.
>
> --Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-nvme mailing list
> Linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists