From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933457AbbDUU4P (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:56:15 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com ([209.85.192.50]:32804 "EHLO mail-qg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932694AbbDUU4M (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:56:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:56:08 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Gabriele Mazzotta Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, stripathi@apm.com Subject: Re: SATA link power management issues Message-ID: <20150421205608.GF9455@htj.duckdns.org> References: <3352987.ugV1Ipy7Z5@xps13> <2356903.cA2H5W8V2D@xps13> <20150421153121.GD9455@htj.duckdns.org> <9107428.nVaRUddl4K@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9107428.nVaRUddl4K@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:29:38PM +0200, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote: > Doing some quick tests I found that in some cases it takes 5 or 6 > seconds for the first interrupt to arrive, so I'd have to use a quite > long interval to completely prevent errors. Hmm... > I am wondering if it would be better using my original solution > (i.e. ignore first event), but make it device specific given that it > might make no sense on other systems and seems to be more reliable than > the time-based one. I'm not sure. What if the extra PHY event isn't that reliable. It'd be pretty confusing if it ends up ignoring a legitimate PHY event after, say, two hours, so one way or the other, we'd need to cap how long we're gonna be ignoring the event. Ignore the first PHY event for 10s after LPM state change? Thanks. -- tejun