From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] [PATCHSET] new Power Management for libata, take 2 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:58:31 +0900 Message-ID: <449F8597.7090605@gmail.com> References: <11511486183271-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <1151304179.7132.169.camel@forrest26.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]:51137 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751190AbWFZG6Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:58:16 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id z59so1327109pyg for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:58:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1151304179.7132.169.camel@forrest26.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: "zhao, forrest" Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, lkml@rtr.ca, axboe@suse.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org zhao, forrest wrote: > On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 20:30 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, all. >> >> This is the second take of new-power-management patchset. Changes >> from the last take[1] are... >> >> * Per-dev PM is now supported. Now generic device PM layer drives >> whole PM sequence and libata port-wide PM does much less. >> > > Hello, Tejun > > It seems that port-level PM callbacks are removed in this patch set :( > So if the author of other types of SATA controllers need to do port- > level PM operations, they need to first add the callbacks by themselves, > right? Right. > Does it make sense to add port-wide PM callbacks in this patch set? Yes, it does. I removed those because none of the currently converted drivers used it. Does AHCI need them? If so, I'll add them. Are you gonna do ACPI stuff w/ those callbacks? -- tejun