Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757709AbYFBRHW (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:07:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753377AbYFBRHH (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:07:07 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.240]:1997 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753611AbYFBRHC (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:07:02 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=OotLqhAL6Kunz5cxG+ilEEYfgR8VZ8un4fOwaa0JeGoXMvFevy9JCTQ1CLHKOVw+/zj0+cOzpP9HmkI/qVTej9pIlVrs83z9oouGH8iQAXfgAzhS/f7CNoH3Edc1yyAvcwbPospdQTNIBwvcsl4wlRim4FdSSCrkZcAxwdRbdUI= Message-ID: <87f94c370806021007i5df45716u38f5b7ce525c03b0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:07:01 -0400 From: "Greg Freemyer" To: "Jeff Garzik" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: ahci: power off unused ports Cc: "Mark Lord" , "Alan Cox" , "Pavel Machek" , "Kristen Carlson Accardi" , "Theodore Tso" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <48441AA6.8080704@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080508161008.59361de5@appleyard> <20080527143202.4bab5bf0@appleyard> <20080527225926.GE6843@mit.edu> <20080527163251.04054a74@appleyard> <20080531080015.GG5405@ucw.cz> <4842F5A8.9020708@garzik.org> <20080602080440.25fc663c@core> <4843A4A7.3020809@garzik.org> <4843EF88.2040606@rtr.ca> <48441AA6.8080704@garzik.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1193 Lines: 35 On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Mark Lord wrote: >> >> For the power-off of unused ports, the current patch still sounds >> extremely vendor-specific (Intel). >> >> Does it actually work (demonstrate, please) on any other hardware ? > > Ding... correct. We need something per-port that's not Intel specific. > > Jeff But, isn't Alan correct that the new logic is useful to some and with a simple boot option is can be used to enable / disable it. So if it is defaulted it to disabled, and the end user is allowed to have a boot option to enable it, you get a reasonable first step for now. Greg -- Greg Freemyer Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer First 99 Days Litigation White Paper - http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/99%20Days%20whitepaper.pdf The Norcross Group The Intersection of Evidence & Technology http://www.norcrossgroup.com -- 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/