From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Expose Power Management Policy option to users Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:36:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20070709193603.GA5722@ucw.cz> References: <20070705194909.337398431@intel.com> <20070705130518.135e4e3c.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070705130518.135e4e3c.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kristen Carlson Accardi Cc: jeff@garzik.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, edwintorok@gmail.com, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hi! > This patch will modify the scsi subsystem to allow > users to set a power management policy for the link. > > The scsi subsystem will create a new sysfs file for each > host in /sys/class/scsi_host called "link_power_management_policy". > This file can have 3 possible values: > > Value Meaning > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > min_power User wishes the link to conserve power as much as > possible, even at the cost of some performance > > max_performance User wants priority to be on performance, not power > savings > > medium_power User wants power savings, with less performance cost > than min_power (but less power savings as well). Has that anything to do with HIPM vs. DIPM? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html