Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7830EC43441 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 18:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3777A2146D for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 18:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="E0m6Svp+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3777A2146D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chromium.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388329AbeKPExE (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 23:53:04 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:38329 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726746AbeKPExE (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 23:53:04 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id p4-v6so9887593plo.5 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:44:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=MJqJPDLhiEc6Ze//c46l5fgBIbQKAy8EIF1v7Gp3a8g=; b=E0m6Svp+IStTIctOI1e3eB9HDoju1P1u6HlVf2sQaTFSNcCmKiwkt0i5N4EMcxTB22 O7m2n8k++Z/9eYYTa48p4RkI9EjWmFkCy7khrCPlBCD1F1fnbTNEWMH+09LLrtq/Tmjk kII6+geQCAQSzCk/0C0T78fpyJqkEjr1uDsx0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=MJqJPDLhiEc6Ze//c46l5fgBIbQKAy8EIF1v7Gp3a8g=; b=XwOlneBsd5TomvjSA3KrX4/ElrPru7y3it8hVIkoTRPlPJ0l84M7cixWXrFrCVfcKv tRbaSoUQan4sYu18zcrjDEUHsEAAS8630MdQuqwteo+4Jo38EQl9UQzEzw757YF2wPIw tXhJlVvXk9NylihUAqfEx50J+DKbiOIqM0e4/u9BDHHYve9PeWiAdozfxw8+xpo4nwBb xmuya8mQEnxnte6Q7p8yn6M5RKqIboAYjTtNXqG1N9iHBnxbf7FUz/zRMDew/AS8hukU rxZWvwUI9b8cdhAxCGYenebyZCcK+NnnObJRTcPRv+dCTogjp7rMfuuYgg5adG5Spg/R lEQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLqgzJWGQCP1eTS0yNxXy3wKRSfL8UHvbjhtqnM0h3qfJWvNMwH kagSBbxBOFxl+h8oTUfRvI4KYg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5ecljU/Ke8j4pdj7P58IFuPg525lnA/sboKj0dJKU4zsR2/qzj5Hn3ADX0/7g/0pEWb1RwZIg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a04:: with SMTP id v4-v6mr7240995plp.247.1542307448314; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:202:1:299d:6b87:5478:d28a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t4-v6sm29064911pfh.21.2018.11.15.10.43.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:43:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:43:33 -0800 From: Brian Norris To: Wen Gong Cc: Wen Gong , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: support PCIe enter L1 state Message-ID: <20181115184333.GA87504@google.com> References: <1542163848-837-1-git-send-email-wgong@codeaurora.org> <20181115002836.GA71934@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:38:25AM +0000, Wen Gong wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ath10k On Behalf Of Brian Norris > > > > Is there some reason L1 was disabled in the first place? Was it known to be > > unreliable? > > Hi Brian, > It is a BUG for power, and it is not considered this BUG before. > So this change will fix the bug. I understand that the existing behavior is suboptimal for power, but on the other hand, code that goes out of its way to *clear* the L1 flag doesn't just pop up out of nowhere. Somebody clearly wrote that! If it just meant "we didn't verify L1 at first", then maybe it's fine to enable it unconditionally and see what happens, but if it meant "we tried L1 on some old chip XXXX and it caused problems", then it would be nice to know what those problems were. Or maybe that is hard to figure out, given there's no public git history tracking the original code, and we just need to try it out. Anyway, I'm giving it a try here, but I just wanted to ask :) Thanks, Brian