From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: ahci: power off unused ports Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:16:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4842F5A8.9020708@garzik.org> References: <20080508161008.59361de5@appleyard> <20080527030854.GC7515@mit.edu> <20080527143202.4bab5bf0@appleyard> <20080527225926.GE6843@mit.edu> <20080527163251.04054a74@appleyard> <20080531080015.GG5405@ucw.cz> 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]:38518 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751294AbYFATRX (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jun 2008 15:17:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080531080015.GG5405@ucw.cz> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: Kristen Carlson Accardi , Theodore Tso , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>>> As far as I know the patch has gone nowhere. I believe that >>>> Jeff wanted something more flexible than the module parameter that >>>> I provided to override the BIOS options. I am not working on this, >>>> I figured he had a pretty firm idea what he wanted so he was better >>>> equipped to write the patch. >>> Thanks Kristen, >>> >>> Can you say which laptops you had tested this on where it saved power? >>> (Did you test any Thinkpads, in particular?) I'm wondering if it's >>> worth trying to forward port your patch as a private mod to my kernel; >>> 30 to 40 minutes of extra battery life is nothing to sneeze at! >>> >>> - Ted >>> >> I tested this on an Intel mobile software development platform >> with a newer mobile ICH - the power savings were measured at the actual >> component (via probes on the ICH), so I did not measure the power >> savings at the wall socket, although I would expect the power savings >> to be even greater on the other side of the power supply. So in short, >> yes, I think it's worth it to give it a try - the patch is pretty >> unintrusive, so it should be that difficult a port to do. > > Can you repost the patch? I believe we should push it and only add > complex enable/disable functionality if someone needs it... If you are talking about SATA -- incorrect. The patch deals with policy, and the user MUST have the ability to control this stuff. Otherwise you create a situation where the user might be denied hotplug use in valid cases, or similar negative situations. Jeff