From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 3EF8CC3A589 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 20:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA532332A for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 20:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="gJPld9l2" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730466AbfHTUzt (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:55:49 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com ([209.85.208.195]:42781 "EHLO mail-lj1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729900AbfHTUzt (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:55:49 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id l14so59734ljj.9 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:55:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kDtE7b4NYnNYIMbB1I2q4i0yK3tBX6HR4LJT1fdv2eE=; b=gJPld9l2ErA0n690vu3wDj4eKvYBYriBt5CI8ZRAWFgoW7C5PpaKNpcDEijKtCCNv6 Rg6Fjug/oIfylvhgpGEtfDZJ2x3JLVgwDm7Em8NxI1jx4DN6yTdQ74Ys1W92mgaeP6BI m6SjayfpFCO7fizz9Q3rYZb9lOEMYptlWISmXCzx3LHJ58avkvMGq4wPc5rPD78aeUWP j52dxTBdx0uJfLvf/BzVGxmOvKDG58nwoFW1jcBoh79C4aoiQJgXmos5Qzsu8vno0t2A AL3pUqgo7InHtFkWIH+Ye9qtpol+5KDu85zQdS1g9HPvJTphQpU6+fAw1xCfYFommfMM 20nQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kDtE7b4NYnNYIMbB1I2q4i0yK3tBX6HR4LJT1fdv2eE=; b=EojZsIMpeqJCI/SkeWIukmiTtf4yo3yis6B4S5vNAbPVLD1FaDL4pDv2urrEDYcCTP mATnSQLuOytYRvfW28xf+hFAFKiqifZ6rQcjT0M9V5F95N4F9nmNXs88J1x80gybpj/U JmnEYiba2FSA1LQsPCghHtWbEOC5DBpAi70ZVN1boyzpk3F7pPJbsAN46L90bYH/RERH /MRIJM9MuBhLVnsvQVGHyyHVXwHdjUL2IuLdMN4b3RENby3KzR0uWNlFuwXFxH9LY78d VrmKRgUDib4kPb3O1/+n7aHZDKOYn6pu7+pKSGkNE0LfRmKQFhkM8xCm/sSYvPr+a9rR /A9w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWIJxwmprQDgnwxtW7JNIKzZEC9IC/WetbjyeooDh0xFfRe/D1x goPpopMI6mVAcNw0TRPcg5CO2GMrsUJniUtcH3ZcYw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzlvuVgHRZqAqRB/YyEqX59UM0QWHbNxhFKBnJ5OTXY0+mLAI8sKkdv7vDw8lrPe+PLNRvhW+YB6gaZ9ewyxFA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:98c9:: with SMTP id s9mr1859768ljj.176.1566334547423; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:55:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7a6d2f14-f2a6-99ad-3a93-fdaa0726ce86@gmail.com> <20190820103400.GY253360@google.com> <20190820193252.GB14450@google.com> <20190820204845.GD14450@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20190820204845.GD14450@google.com> From: Rajat Jain Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:55:10 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI/ASPM: add sysfs attribute for controlling ASPM To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Heiner Kallweit , Frederick Lawler , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Greg KH Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:48 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:51:09PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote: > > > > May be we're digressing now, but I'd like to point out that there is > > atleast one more file in ASPM that potentially violates the "1 value > > per file" rule: > > > > rajatja@rajat2:/sys/module/pcie_aspm/parameters$ cat policy > > [default] performance powersave powersupersave > > rajatja@rajat2:/sys/module/pcie_aspm/parameters$ > > > > ... although I would argue in this case that it makes it much clear > > what are the allowable values to write, and which is the current > > selected one. > > Huh, that's a good point. That "policy" file is a little problematic > for several reasons, one being the config options > (CONFIG_PCIEASPM_PERFORMANCE, CONFIG_PCIEASPM_POWERSAVE, etc) that > lock a distro into some default choice. > > Maybe there's something we can do there, although there's legacy use > to consider (there are a zillion web pages that document > pcie_aspm/parameters/policy as a way to fix things), and it's > certainly beyond the scope of *this* series. Agreed! > > Bjorn