From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [isci PATCH v3 1/4] libata: export ata_port suspend/resume infrastructure for sas Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 02:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4F9252FC.9020706@garzik.org> References: <20120314071312.7223.10946.stgit@dwillia2-linux.jf.intel.com> <20120314071353.7223.5361.stgit@dwillia2-linux.jf.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-vb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:36655 "EHLO mail-vb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752644Ab2DUG0H (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2012 02:26:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120314071353.7223.5361.stgit@dwillia2-linux.jf.intel.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Williams Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Jacek Danecki On 03/14/2012 03:13 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > Reuse ata_port_{suspend|resume}_common for sas. This path is chosen > over adding coordination between ata-tranport and sas-transport because > libsas wants to revalidate the domain at resume-time at the host level. > It can not validate links have resumed properly until libata has had a > chance to perform its revalidation, and any sane placing of an ata_port > in the sas-transport model would delay it's resumption until after the > host. > > Export the common portion of port suspend/resume (bypass pm_runtime), > and allow sas to perform these operations asynchronously (similar to the > libsas async-ata probe implmentation). Async operation is determined by > having an external, rather than stack based, location for storing the > result of the operation. > > Reviewed-by: Jacek Danecki > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams > --- > drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > include/linux/libata.h | 11 +++++++++ > 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) Now that libata's runtime PM problems seem to be fixed for the moment, we can revisit port PM here. Just checking... Is this patch still needed?