From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Expose Power Management Policy option to users Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:53:52 -0600 Message-ID: <20070801165352.GB21219@parisc-linux.org> References: <20070705194909.337398431@intel.com> <20070705130518.135e4e3c.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <46AE12B6.6090408@garzik.org> <46AED656.8070407@gmail.com> <1185891488.3468.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1185891488.3468.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Tejun Heo , Jeff Garzik , Kristen Carlson Accardi , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, edwintorok@gmail.com, axboe@kernel.dk List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:18:08AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > The other comment is that power saving seems to be a property of the > transport rather than the host. If you do it in the transport classes, > then you can expose all the knobs the actual transport possesses (which > is, unfortunately, none for quite a few SCSI transports). Would it save any power to negotiate down to, say, FAST-20 for the SPI transport? Or to negotiate narrow instead of wide, so fewer cables have to be powered? -- "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."