From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 11 05:38:30 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E3616A41F; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 05:38:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E356A43D46; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 05:38:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8B5cQhP054120; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:38:26 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4323C2D6.9030807@samsco.org> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:38:30 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050615 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <70e8236f0509051350e020f76@mail.gmail.com> <70e8236f05091016251510408c@mail.gmail.com> <43236E04.4020208@samsco.org> <20050910.211400.45157820.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050910.211400.45157820.imp@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: joao.barros@gmail.com, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, mike@sentex.net Subject: Re: 6.0-CURRENT SNAP004 hangs on amr (patch) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 05:38:30 -0000 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <43236E04.4020208@samsco.org> > Scott Long writes: > : Thanks for the invesitgative work. I strenously objected to this change > : when it went in, and this kind of problem is precisely the reason why. > : Turning off device power on the PCI bus willy-nilly is such an > : incredibly bad idea, even if the hope with it is to get a few extra > : minutes of battery life on a laptop. > > It is *NOT* an incredibly bad idea. It is suggested by the standards, > and is done by other OSes, including Windows. I know you don't like > it, but it is very beneficial in many circumstances. It helps with > heat issues as well as power consumption. > One more question. Where exactly have you measured the effects here? Can you quantify how much the heat and/or power savings are on a particular computer with this strategy in use? > : I worked around this problem with the AAC devices, but I don't know if > : the AMR devices can be worked around the same way. I've asked Warner in > : private to back out the change. If he refuses, then I'm afraid that > : you'll need to remember an undocumented workaround, or find another OS. > > I've said before that the right fix is to fix the device drivers that > have knowledge of these split devices. I still stand by that > assessment. > > So far only two drivers have been affected (amr and aac). I'm > disinclined to change it because of those two devices. And I'm tired of cleaning up after your mess simply because I happen to care about making a working OS. > > However, I'll start thinking about this in detail and reconsider it > after some thought. There may be a better workaround. > > Warner