Re: [PATCH] r8169: add enable_aspm parameter
From: AceLan Kao
Date: Mon Jul 08 2019 - 23:19:19 EST
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> æ 2019å7æ9æ éä äå2:27åéï
> On 08.07.2019 08:37, AceLan Kao wrote:
> > We have many commits in the driver which enable and then disable ASPM
> > function over and over again.
> > commit b75bb8a5b755 ("r8169: disable ASPM again")
> > commit 0866cd15029b ("r8169: enable ASPM on RTL8106E")
> > commit 94235460f9ea ("r8169: Align ASPM/CLKREQ setting function with vendor driver")
> > commit aa1e7d2c31ef ("r8169: enable ASPM on RTL8168E-VL")
> > commit f37658da21aa ("r8169: align ASPM entry latency setting with vendor driver")
> > commit a99790bf5c7f ("r8169: Reinstate ASPM Support")
> > commit 671646c151d4 ("r8169: Don't disable ASPM in the driver")
> > commit 4521e1a94279 ("Revert "r8169: enable internal ASPM and clock request settings".")
> > commit d64ec841517a ("r8169: enable internal ASPM and clock request settings")
> > This function is very important for production, and if we can't come out
> > a solution to make both happy, I'd suggest we add a parameter in the
> > driver to toggle it.
> The usage of a module parameter to control ASPM is discouraged.
> There have been more such attempts in the past that have been declined.
> Pending with the PCI maintainers is a series adding ASPM control
> via sysfs, see here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg83228.html
Cool, I'll try your patches and reply on that thread.
> Also more details than just stating "it's important for production"
> would have been appreciated in the commit message, e.g. which
> power-savings you can achieve with ASPM on which systems.
I should use more specific wordings rather than "important for