On Tuesday 09 of October 2012 15:20:39 Aaron Lu wrote:

On 10/08/2012 06:21 PM, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 17:27 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 03:43:27PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012, Jeff Garzik wrote:

quoted

The simple fact of "only ZPODD devices out there are ATA" is not the 
decision-maker for where the code should live.  It is more a question 
where ZPODD belongs in the device/command set model currently employed.

I don't really accept this argument.  It's a little like saying: The
tty layer uses ioctl commands to control RS232 line settings; therefore
RS232 settings should be handled in the VFS layer as part of the ioctl
core.

Regardless, according to Aaron the ZP power-off stuff is currently
implemented only in ACPI, tied more closely to the ATA layer than the
SCSI layer (though not part of either).  It is not part of the SCSI
spec in any form.

The mechanism of SATA ODD zero power model is specified in Mount Fuji
spec v8 section 15 describing what the ODD needs support, how to sense
if the ODD is ready to be powered off and on power up what needs to be
done, etc. And the actual power off and wakeup is implemented in ACPI
and SATA.

quoted

Now it's true that determining whether a device is
in the right state for power to be removed involves sending a TEST UNIT
READY command, which is of course a SCSI command.  This seems to be
incidental to the overall scheme, however.

I need to add that, there are 2 schemes to sense if the ODD is ready to
be powered off:
1 the one I used here, by checking if the door is closed and no media
  inside with test_unit_ready;
2 some ZP capable ODDs can report zero power ready(ZPReady) event to
  host when queried, eliminating the need of host checking the conditions.

The way I read the standard is that ZP ODD is a hack to try and get to

Thanks for your time.

quoted

off and ZPready is the same hack but integrated into the standardised
power management states (and hence available to normal power saving).
The standard even implies ZP ODD is a less desirable hack by
recommending the use of ZPready.

There are ZPODDs not supporting ZPready and I want to support them so
the sense scheme 1 is used.

quoted

The ZPready method, being an extension of the usual SCSI power
management model, is pretty much what we support today (especially as
the whole thing is timer driven from values in the mode page and happens
pretty much invisibly to us).

Since the object is to make this as painless as possible, why don't we
just implement ZPODD the way the spec recommends?  i.e. emulate the
timers at an incredibly low level and intercept and emulate the non-disk
commands listed in table 321.  I bet, in Linux, since we moved basically
to GET_EVENT_STATUS_NOTIFICATION, that's the only one that actually
needs an emulation.

The state model seems to work if you snoop the polled media event, so
you wait for no media, then set your internal timer, stop it if we get a
media change and power off the device after interval expiry.  Thereafter
you emulate media event with no change keeping the device powered off.
If a disc gets inserted or the eject button is pressed, you see that via
the SATA PHY events (so wake the drive) and if the Upper Layer sends an
unexpected command, you also power on the drive.

That way all of this should be nicely containable within SATA/ACPI.

Thanks for the suggestion, it is really something that I've never
thought of :-)

Well, that's what I wanted to say previously, but James expressed it much
better than I could. ;-)

But I was hoping to use the runtime pm framework to support ZPODD.
With your suggestion, I don't know how to do this. Maybe I can set the
scsi device representing the ODD to runtime suspended once I decided to
power it off and resume it when I power it up. But there is a problem,
that I'm setting a scsi device's runtime status in ATA layer, this
doesn't feel right. And someday, someone may want to add runtime pm
support for sr and the runtime status of the scsi device will be messed.

The reason I want to use runtime PM is, when the scsi device is runtime
suspended, its ancestor devices will have a chance to enter runtime
suspend state, e.g. the sata controller.

You can add runtime PM support for sr that won't do anything hardware-specific
and in addition to that you can do pm_runtime_get_sync() on the parent directly
from the ATA layer when you know it is needed and pm_runtime_put() when you
know it is safe for it to go to a low-power state.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.