Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:It's a one-off driver-specific interface that will have to be supported even after the same feature is available via libata core... that's not the path to scalable, sustainable engineering. I know user interfaces are annoying because you have to think about chips other than your own, but that's life. Other hardware vendors have to do it too. Letting each driver have a different user interface is /unfriendly/ to both developers users. It's easiest for Intel kernel developers, but that is not our target audience :) The biggest power savings for the largest amount of users can be had if you take a moment and figure out what's best for Linux, rather than what is best for Intel. Because you can be damned sure SATA users with non-AHCI chips want this power savings too... let's not put roadblocks to that in place in the beginning (by adding one-off interfaces). Jeff --
| Jeff Garzik | [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core |
| Jamie Lokier | Re: POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. Transactions, failover, performa... |
| Dave Young | Re: 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 |
| Willy Tarreau | Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? |
git: | |
| Dan Miner | Compilation speeds (was Re: No patchlevel 3.} |
| Ian Jackson | RFD: comp.os.linux split |
| X X | X11 GIf viewer somewhere? |
| root | Broken pipe when using reboot/halt, etc. |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
