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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 D4797C4361B for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934D2227C3 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731518AbgLOShm (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2020 13:37:42 -0500 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:40679 "EHLO mga18.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731688AbgLOShH (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2020 13:37:07 -0500 IronPort-SDR: +NrQmDAeJ02N1/Yhj/jqksnSO5syFREkOccieS/yfPFgvyWsT5Vm15uSf5ZaQ2LalHxDj250QO SnmDtU6CKAKg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9836"; a="162678271" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,422,1599548400"; d="scan'208";a="162678271" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Dec 2020 10:36:26 -0800 IronPort-SDR: hH4q2KvN5MqJXccttH8AX4REOn8lBVyFfnCOmAodejaA9cMt9BSg3bziX7FpUGSf7tPnXmJc5X 27orHkJMgcFg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,422,1599548400"; d="scan'208";a="412085807" Received: from sneftin-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.214.238.87]) ([10.214.238.87]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Dec 2020 10:36:20 -0800 Subject: Re: Fw: [External] Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Improve s0ix flows for systems i219LM To: "Limonciello, Mario" , Mark Pearson , Jeff Kirsher , Tony Nguyen , "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" , David Miller , Aaron Ma Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Netdev , Alexander Duyck , Jakub Kicinski , Aaron Brown , Stefan Assmann , "darcari@redhat.com" , "Shen, Yijun" , "Yuan, Perry" , "anthony.wong@canonical.com" , "Ruinskiy, Dima" , "Efrati, Nir" , "Lifshits, Vitaly" , "Neftin, Sasha" References: <20201214153450.874339-1-mario.limonciello@dell.com> <80862f70-18a4-4f96-1b96-e2fad7cc2b35@redhat.com> <18c1c152-9298-a4c5-c4ed-92c9fd91ea8a@intel.com> From: "Neftin, Sasha" Message-ID: <9bac261e-0efb-fe07-7c3e-6c4ff156bb67@intel.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:36:18 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/15/2020 19:20, Limonciello, Mario wrote: > >>> Absolutely - I'll ask them to look into this again. >>> >> we need to explain why on Windows systems required 1s and on Linux >> systems up to 2.5s - otherwise it is not reliable approach - you will >> encounter others buggy system. >> (ME not POR on the Linux systems - is only one possible answer) > > Sasha: In your opinion does this information need to block the series? > or can we follow up with more changes later on as more information becomes > available? > I do not think this should block the patches series. > For now v5 of the series extends the timeout but at least makes a mention > that there appears to be a firmware bug when more than 1 second is taken. >