On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 04:32:27PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 28-03-19 16:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 04:01:37PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > On 28-03-19 15:58, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 03:35:58PM +0100, David Müller wrote: > > > > > Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 06:31:19PM +0100, David Müller wrote:
> > > > > > Any driver for device which is using PMC clock should take it into > > > > > > consideration. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that each driver should properly request the clocks and other > > > > > resources needed. > > > > Can you elaborate a bit more the case you are talking about? > > > I think the board with igb ethernet controllers might > > > just as well be handled the same way (I already checked it has usable > > > DMI identifying info). > > > > But am I right that in the case of igb we will loose power at suspend? > > Wouldn't > > be better to patch the driver? > > This is an industrial embedded PC, so it is not running on battery and > I doubt it typically spends a lot of time in suspend at all. Okay, but still from logical point of view wouldn't be better to fix the driver for such case? At least I see benefits out of this approach: a) less hackish, less quirk code; b) if this happens on non-industrial case it would be better to have in the driver due to power consumption. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
