lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: is L1 really disabled in iwlwifi
From
>
> I couldn't imagine that silently ignoring the request to disable ASPM
> would be the right thing, but I spent a long time experimenting with
> Windows on qemu, and I think you're right. Windows 7 also seems to
> ignore the "PciASPMOptOut" directive when we don't have permission
> to manage ASPM. All the gory details are at
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57331
>
> The current behavior is definitely confusing. I hate to rename or change
> pci_disable_link_state() because it's exported and we'd have to maintain
> the old interface for a while anyway. And I don't really want to return
> failure to drivers, because I think that would encourage people to fiddle
> with the Link Control register directly in the driver, which doesn't seem
> like a good idea.
>
> And you're also right that (as far as I know) there's not an actual
> problem with the current behavior other than the confusion it causes.
>
> So, how about something like the following patch, which just prints a
> warning when we can't do what the driver requested? I suppose this may
> also be a nuisance, because users will be worried, but they can't actually
> *do* anything about it. Maybe it should be dev_info() instead.
>

Good for me - now I would be notified that something wrong happened.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-17 08:21    [W:0.882 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site