On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:38:03PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Johannes Stezenbach j...@sig21.net
wrote:
Does CONFIG_PCIEASPM provide a way for the user to modifiy
the
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Johannes Stezenbach j...@sig21.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:38:03PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Johannes Stezenbach j...@sig21.net
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:28:57AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Johannes Stezenbach j...@sig21.net wrote:
If enabling ASPM comes with a performance penalty (which is not unexpected,
there is usually a tradeoff between performance and power consumption),
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Matthew Garrett m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 01:39:07PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Last I reviewed CONFIG_PCIEASPM won't buy you *anything* other than
debugging knobs. With it you can force all devices to enable ASPM
completely on or
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 01:39:07PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Last I reviewed CONFIG_PCIEASPM won't buy you *anything* other than
debugging knobs. With it you can force all devices to enable ASPM
completely on or disable it. Both of which I think are not really
useful and instead should
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:17:11AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Why would you only want to enable ASPM for one device?
ASPM doesn't
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:48:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Sure, I agree with that, but it also will enable ASPM for *all*
devices which have the capability which IMHO is a terrible idea for
users when all they want to do is enable ASPM for one device. Instead
I recommend users to
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:17:11AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Why would you only want to enable ASPM for one device?
ASPM doesn't always work for all devices even if they do advertise
ASPM capability so turning
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:40:15AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
Right, which we have to deal with by having drivers disable ASPM on
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
People who use force deserve whatever they get,
Heh, this whole patch and thread was started because Jussi tested
ath5k with pcie_aspm=force (on a
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:44:26AM -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
People who use force deserve whatever they get,
Heh, this whole patch and
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Johannes Stezenbach j...@sig21.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:44:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Heh, this whole patch and thread was started because Jussi tested
ath5k with
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Johannes Stezenbach j...@sig21.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:44:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Heh,
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:48:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Sure, I agree with that, but it also will enable ASPM for *all*
devices which have the capability which IMHO is a terrible idea for
users when all
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:44:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Heh, this whole patch and thread was started because Jussi tested
ath5k with pcie_aspm=force (on a pre PCIE 1.1 device (?)) . I have
been trying to explain
Quoting Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com:
Also Jussi Kivilinna said that he found that in windows .inf file there
are some instructions to enable L1 but not L0s.
For which chipsets?
I uploaded windows driver I have to:
Luis, let me explain again, exactly the situation:
First of all AR5001 and AR5001X devices (former was usualy listed as
AR2425, and I have it, later I don't know about much), don't work well
with ASPM L0s enabled.
I told that many times, but I tell again.
As soon as card it put on medium to high
Quoting Maxim Levitsky maximlevit...@gmail.com:
Card (at least mine) advertises its as a 'pre pci 1.1 device'.
Therefore if I enable CONFIG_PCIEASPM, the pci core will automaticly
disable ASPM (both L0s and L1) on this card.
I won't be surprised that windows does the same.
Even if
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Maxim Levitsky maximlevit...@gmail.com wrote:
Luis, let me explain again, exactly the situation:
First of all AR5001 and AR5001X devices (former was usualy listed as
AR2425, and I have it, later I don't know about much), don't work well
with ASPM L0s enabled.
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 13:37 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Maxim Levitsky maximlevit...@gmail.com
wrote:
Luis, let me explain again, exactly the situation:
First of all AR5001 and AR5001X devices (former was usualy listed as
AR2425, and I have it,
Note: this e-mail is on a public mailing list.
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Maxim Levitsky
maximlevit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:11 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 09:59 -0400, Bob Copeland wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Maxim Levitsky
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 14:18 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 01:13 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Note: this e-mail is on a public mailing list.
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Maxim Levitsky
maximlevit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:11 +0300,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Maxim Levitsky maximlevit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 01:13 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
commit ac5de416f822917b927958b21186a82141550da7
Author: Maxim Levitsky maximlevit...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Jun 17 23:21:42 2010 +0300
ath5k:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:49:34AM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
How this patch?
Looks fine to me. Some nitpicking below but feel free to add my
Acked-by: Bob Copeland m...@bobcopeland.com
to this or a later version.
Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna jussi.kivili...@mbnet.fi
On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 08:38 -0400, Bob Copeland wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:49:34AM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
How this patch?
Looks fine to me. Some nitpicking below but feel free to add my
Acked-by: Bob Copeland m...@bobcopeland.com
to this or a later version.
25 matches
Mail list logo
