From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] libata: implement powersave timer Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:48:21 -0400 Message-ID: <44BE8C85.2080008@pobox.com> References: <11531191522801-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:59785 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030250AbWGSTs0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:48:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <11531191522801-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo , axboe@suse.de Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, lkml@rtr.ca, forrest.zhao@intel.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > Implement powersave timer. It is primarily for OS-driven HIPS > implementation but can be used for any other PS purpose LLD sees fit. > During normal operation, PS timer is automatically started with > timeout ap->ps_timeout on port idle and stopped when the port becomes > busy. The timer is also stopped while EH. > > To minimize overhead and allow easy implementation of expected > operation model, ata_ps_timer_worker() is used as timer callback which > invokes LLD supplied ap->ps_timer_fn() if condition meets and also > helps implementing sequenced multi-step operation. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo This makes me wonder what Jens thinks about having a device idle timer and callback at the block level? At the very least, this feels like it should be implemented in the SCSI layer, or somewhere other than libata. This is NOT a NAK, however. The code looks OK, and if consensus is against doing this sort of thing in block or SCSI, then I'm OK with the current patch.