On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:20:54AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 14:58 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:56:28AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > v3->v2, fixed the issues Matthew Wilcox raised.
> > >
> > > PCI Express ASPM defines a protocol for PCI Express components in the D0
> > > state to reduce Link power by placing their Links into a low power state
> > > and instructing the other end of the Link to do likewise. This
> > > capability allows hardware-autonomous, dynamic Link power reduction
> > > beyond what is achievable by software-only controlled power management.
> > > However, The device should be configured by software appropriately.
> > > Enabling ASPM will save power, but will introduce device latency.
> > >
> > > This patch adds ASPM support in Linux. It introduces a global policy for
> > > ASPM, a sysfs file /sys/module/pcie_aspm/parameters/policy can control
> > > it. The interface can be used as a boot option too. Currently we have
> > > below setting:
> > > -default, BIOS default setting
> > > -powersave, highest power saving mode, enable all available ASPM
> > > state
> > > and clock power management
> > > -performance, highest performance, disable ASPM and clock power
> > > management
> > > By default, the 'default' policy is used currently.
> > >
> > > In my test, power difference between powersave mode and performance mode
> > > is about 1.3w in a system with 3 PCIE links.
> > >
> > > please review, any comments will be appreciated.
> >
> > Can you please fix up all of the warnings that checkpatch.pl and sparse
> > produce from this patch?
> >
> > Also, one small thing:
> >
> > > --- linux.orig/include/linux/pci.h 2008-01-16 15:59:42.000000000
> > > +0800
> > > +++ linux/include/linux/pci.h 2008-01-18 09:41:20.000000000 +0800
> > > @@ -164,6 +164,10 @@ struct pci_dev {
> > > this is D0-D3, D0 being fully
> > > functional,
> > > and D3 being off. */
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCIEASPM
> > > + void *link_state; /* ASPM link state. */
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Can we make this a "real" pointer to a structure? I note that you use
> > two different structures here in this pointer, should you really do
> > that? It's good to get type-checks whereever possible.
> The structure is just for internal use of ASPM, just don't want make it
> global.
Yes, you don't need to expose the structure type, just name it, and then
define it in the code itself.
But using a void pointer as you have here, allows you to assign two
different types of structures to this pointer. Are you sure that you
always get this right? :)
Please, let's try to inforce type-saftey and set this to be a specific
type of pointer to a structure. That will require you to possibly merge
the two structures, which will require some code changes.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
