From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ACPI: Fix the incorrect behavior of the disabled ASPM on Haswell CPU Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:45:30 +0000 Message-ID: <20140310154530.GA27699@srcf.ucam.org> References: <6366A95FCFBB78419E783DDD020ED2ECB2F134@APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:55585 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752277AbaCJPph (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:45:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6366A95FCFBB78419E783DDD020ED2ECB2F134@APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Huang12 Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:56:25AM +0000, Adrian Huang12 wrote: > + if (status == AE_NOT_FOUND && Why limit it to not found? I suspect that we should never be basing our ASPM policy on the behaviour of PCI (rather than PCIe) bridges. I'd recommend changing the patch subject line, too - there's nothing Haswell specific about this. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org