Heiner Kallweit <[email protected]> 於 2019年7月9日 週二 上午2:27寫道： > > 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 production", thanks.
