From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kristen Carlson Accardi Subject: Re: [RFC] expand link_power_management_policy definition Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:08:01 -0700 Message-ID: <20080604090801.4c5a7658@appleyard> References: <20080603172307.1b963aac@appleyard> <4845E761.2090604@garzik.org> Reply-To: kristen.c.accardi@intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:45107 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752987AbYFDQRu (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:17:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4845E761.2090604@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:52:49 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote: > Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > > I think I mentioned on the list a couple weeks ago that I favor just > > expanding the definition of link power management to include > > the notion of simply powering the entire port off rather > > than adding new knobs to sysfs. I wrote this completely untested and > > very incomplete patch to give you a better idea of what I am proposing. > > This patch adds a new valid value of "power_off" for the existing > > link_power_management_policy sysfs entry: > > Looks fine to me... that would work nicely. > > I think your patch is missing code to handle the transition from > power_off to , though, right? > > I'm quite happy with this approach. > > Jeff > > > yeah - it's missing a lot. I'll flesh it out some more and send a real one.