From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753594AbcIBSLd (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:11:33 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:18629 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753006AbcIBSLb (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:11:31 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,272,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="1024344470" Message-ID: <1472839879.2754.77.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: Enable autonomous power state transitions From: J Freyensee To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Keith Busch , Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:11:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <88cc7972617eec58a81877d933604e0f0e342e43.1472462539.git.luto@kernel.org> <1472483266.2816.14.camel@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.4 (3.20.4-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +     /* > > > > +      * By default, allow up to 25ms of APST-induced > > > > latency.  This will > > > > +      * have no effect on non-APST supporting controllers > > > > (i.e. > > > > any > > > > +      * controller with APSTA == 0). > > > > +      */ > > > > +     ctrl->apst_max_latency_ns = 25000000; > > > > > > Is it possible to make that a #define please? > > > > I'll make it a module parameter as Keith suggested. > > One question, though: should we call this and the sysfs parameter > apst_max_latency or should it be more generically > power_save_max_latency?  The idea is that we might want to support > non-automonous transitions some day or even runtime D3.  Or maybe > those should be separately configured if used. I read the spec and reviewed your latest patchset.  Personally for me I like having the field names from the NVMe spec in the names of the Linux implementation because it makes it easier to find and relate the two.  So apst_max_latency makes more sense to me, as this is a 'apst'(e/a) NVMe feature. > > --Andy > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-nvme mailing list > Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme