MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANUX_P3znXgMN5aBZbEVx_zKpTQ98my1C_cBG5+mERFWrrrLEw@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>
	<CANUX_P3znXgMN5aBZbEVx_zKpTQ98my1C_cBG5+mERFWrrrLEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 15:23:21 +0300
Message-ID: <CANUX_P3Mt3X8JXq5siSijrWGkjeWbTCcdmJ-Fuv6U8jUqrFouQ@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20130407_142337_471504_785D3E60)
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

>>
>> 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.

ping? :-)