Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422755AbWHXWYX (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:24:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422768AbWHXWYX (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:24:23 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:28814 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422755AbWHXWYW (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:24:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:24:18 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure Message-ID: <20060824222417.GA27504@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1156441295.3014.75.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1156441295.3014.75.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on vavatch.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 842 Lines: 21 On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 07:41:35PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > + /* the ipw2100 hardware really doesn't want power management delays > + * longer than 500usec > + */ > + modify_acceptable_latency("ipw2100", 500); > + Hm. My BIOS claims that the C3 transition period is 85usec (and even my C4 is 185) , but I've hit the error path where C3 gets disabled. Is this really adequate? Also, by the looks of it, the C3 disabling path is still present - is it still theoretically necessary with the above, or is this just a belt and braces approach? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/