From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: ahci: CAP_SSS and parallel scan Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 10:40:35 +0200 Message-ID: <4BE52383.9080908@kernel.org> References: <4BE27C49.5090809@kernel.org> <4BE28C4F.9000903@linux.intel.com> <4BE2D5D6.1010705@kernel.org> <4BE31D57.6020400@garzik.org> <4BE3A1A6.1040106@kernel.org> <4BE48742.8060604@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:37532 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752617Ab0EHIkt (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2010 04:40:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BE48742.8060604@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Arjan van de Ven , t.artem@mailcity.com, "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" On 05/07/2010 11:33 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > I'm not sure the usefulness is limited, as it definitely avoids power > spikes on server BIOSen that care. So, are there actually machines which get affected by this? In that case, sure, the current behavior is the right one. > Also, it seems unwise for the Linux SATA driver to do the exact > -opposite- of what the SSS bit intends, by default. Yeah, well, the thing is that SSS in itself doesn't really indicate need for staggered spin up. It just says it knows how to. Thanks. -- tejun