From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC] expand link_power_management_policy definition Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:51:24 +0900 Message-ID: <484DEC2C.2090207@gmail.com> References: <20080603172307.1b963aac@appleyard> <4845E761.2090604@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.168]:26604 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753014AbYFJCvc (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:51:32 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so2383690wfd.4 for ; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:51:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4845E761.2090604@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Kristen Carlson Accardi , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > 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. I agree this is the right place to implement the control. Thanks. -- tejun