On Wed 2007-01-31 13:53:20, Amit Kucheria wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:48 +0100, ext Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 11:27, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 12:13:04PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> writes: > > > > > > > > > > PCI seems to require a delay of 10ms when sequencing from D3 to D0, > > > > > which probably isn't acceptable latency for an "up" state. > > > > > > > > It might be if the interface has been idle for some time > > > > (and the delay is not busy looping of course) > > > > > > Hm. How would this interact with receiving packets? > > > > The hardware will hopefully have support to wake itself up when that > > happens. > > Yes. Low power states without ability to respond to wakeup interrupts > would be broken behaviour generally. Do you realy expect wifi to save significant ammount of power, while still listening for packets on wireless network? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
