From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [patch 2a/3] Expose Power Management Policy option to users Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:48:03 -0400 Message-ID: <46705803.4000901@garzik.org> References: <20070611184146.448266229@intel.com> <20070611114820.5290a903.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <466DA9DD.8080004@garzik.org> <20070612104631.44dab4a3.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <1181748408.3421.7.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.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]:39702 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751997AbXFMUsH (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:48:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1181748408.3421.7.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Kristen Carlson Accardi , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, htejun@gmail.com James Bottomley wrote: > To take the model I understand: SAS; the links are managed at the phy > level, so the power policy should be set there and thus should probably > be a property of the phy object, which doesn't even exist in the SCSI > model, it only exists in the transport class. It strikes me that even > for ATA, the same thing is probably true. > > Now, I can see that the power management models of all the transports > might share some similarities (particularly at this three stage granular > level); if so, it might make sense to export helpers from the mid-layer > for the transport classes to use for this. Agreed, in principle. Jeff