From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [RFC] expand link_power_management_policy definition Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:52:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4845E761.2090604@garzik.org> References: <20080603172307.1b963aac@appleyard> 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]:54918 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751753AbYFDAwv (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:52:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080603172307.1b963aac@appleyard> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Kristen Carlson Accardi Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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