Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190708063751.16234-1-acelan.kao@canonical.com> <53f82481-ed41-abc5-2e4e-ac1026617219@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53f82481-ed41-abc5-2e4e-ac1026617219@gmail.com>
From:   AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:19:01 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFv23Q=mA9t0j2F4fKdOkgG6sao0m7rR_9-d9OvAmSerZf_=ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: add enable_aspm parameter
To:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Cc:     Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@realtek.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com> 於 2019年7月9日 週二 上午2:27寫道：
>
> On 08.07.2019 08:37, AceLan Kao wrote:
> > We have many commits in the driver which enable and then disable ASPM
> > function over and over again.
> >    commit b75bb8a5b755 ("r8169: disable ASPM again")
> >    commit 0866cd15029b ("r8169: enable ASPM on RTL8106E")
> >    commit 94235460f9ea ("r8169: Align ASPM/CLKREQ setting function with vendor driver")
> >    commit aa1e7d2c31ef ("r8169: enable ASPM on RTL8168E-VL")
> >    commit f37658da21aa ("r8169: align ASPM entry latency setting with vendor driver")
> >    commit a99790bf5c7f ("r8169: Reinstate ASPM Support")
> >    commit 671646c151d4 ("r8169: Don't disable ASPM in the driver")
> >    commit 4521e1a94279 ("Revert "r8169: enable internal ASPM and clock request settings".")
> >    commit d64ec841517a ("r8169: enable internal ASPM and clock request settings")
> >
> > This function is very important for production, and if we can't come out
> > a solution to make both happy, I'd suggest we add a parameter in the
> > driver to toggle it.
> >
> The usage of a module parameter to control ASPM is discouraged.
> There have been more such attempts in the past that have been declined.
>
> Pending with the PCI maintainers is a series adding ASPM control
> via sysfs, see here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg83228.html
Cool, I'll try your patches and reply on that thread.

>
> Also more details than just stating "it's important for production"
> would have been appreciated in the commit message, e.g. which
> power-savings you can achieve with ASPM on which systems.
I should use more specific wordings rather than "important for
production", thanks.