On 5/15/25 14:59, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 02:42:17PM +0200, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 5/14/25 19:22, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>>> The current code performs a SET FEATURES command to disable DIPM if
>>> policy < ATA_LPM_MED_POWER_WITH_DIPM, this means that it will disable
>>> DIPM for policies:
>>> ATA_LPM_UNKNOWN, ATA_LPM_MAX_POWER, ATA_LPM_MED_POWER
>>> (but not for policy ATA_LPM_MED_POWER_WITH_DIPM).
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>> index 91d97d98eed1..1727248f135d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>> @@ -3473,7 +3473,7 @@ static int ata_eh_set_lpm(struct ata_link *link, enum ata_lpm_policy policy,
>>> hints &= ~ATA_LPM_HIPM;
>>>
>>> /* disable DIPM before changing link config */
>>> - if (policy < ATA_LPM_MED_POWER_WITH_DIPM && dev_has_dipm) {
>>> + if (dev_has_dipm) {
>>
>> This changes the same line that patch 6 changed... Can you squash these patches
>> together ?
>
> It is two separate logical changes, so squashing them seems wrong IMO.
Hmm... Given that the same line is changed, I would prefer a single patch. But OK.
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
