Re: Network drivers that don't suspend on interface down

[Jesse Brandeburg]

On 12/20/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Yeah, I guess that's a problem. From a user perspective, the
> > functionality is only really useful if the latency is very small. I
> > think where possible we'd want to power down the chip while keeping the
> > phy up, but it would be nice to know how much power that would actually
> > cost us.
>
> I'm no expert but afaik the PHY is the power hungry part, the rest is
> peanuts. So if we can get the PHY to sleep most of the time that would
> be great.

The MAC uses some part of power, but FYI at least e1000 already does
phy power management when IF_DOWN, if wake on lan isn't enabled, smbus
isn't enabled, etc etc.  If we started using D3 power management its
possible a whole bunch of code would go away out of e1000.

Is there some reason why we can't have the OS just do the D3
transition for all drivers that register support?  I mean, this power
management using D states is actually driver *independent* and at
least way back in the day was supposed to be implemented for "OS power
management"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/