Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42]:63532 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756550Ab3DBLMx (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:12:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANUX_P2Hy02SnyYS24dyUGLv3wB3L5xkXt8Y1s+8_RG9d5ReAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUX_P3F5YhbZX3WGU-j1AGpbXb_T9Bis2ErhvKkFMtDvzatVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130304134949.GB3021@redhat.com>
	<CANUX_P0JhuVWcQjTckYzG8eBb2MtT_=prKqV38mCpVjfLmGtCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130304154832.GD3021@redhat.com>
	<CANUX_P22AkqeOROP1QHzp20wGWgDbRzy+9FZy2KvHLXCQ5AVnA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAErSpo5gVsUxB6ebQGAN-7jsZiRYZ+SyJn5gKZrSuOzzkJ-QjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUX_P2-V0-=sfofxYwAYCRvqPPf5Z2wy6CUNQmGQQ2NqjZJ_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAErSpo4xmDU2O35ge342nMuiVyDkzSGNRaz2O7-w6jDz_eBgyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUX_P2Hy02SnyYS24dyUGLv3wB3L5xkXt8Y1s+8_RG9d5ReAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:12:52 +0300
Message-ID: <CANUX_P3znXgMN5aBZbEVx_zKpTQ98my1C_cBG5+mERFWrrrLEw@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20130402_131257_800282_CC4E235D)
Subject: Re: is L1 really disabled in iwlwifi
From: Emmanuel Grumbach <egrumbach@gmail.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	John Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	Roman Yepishev <roman.yepishev@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>

>
> I attached all the data you needed.
> The link state seems to go to L1 based on the low power the NIC consumes.
> So it seems that even if we use pci_disable_link_state() to disabled
> L1, L1 is still disabled.
>

Ugh... so doesn't make any sense.... so again:

So it seems that even if we use pci_disable_link_state() to disable
L1, the link state still enters L1.