On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Saturday 02 August 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> Hi Johannes! >> >> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008, Johannes Berg wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 15:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> > > Currently, rfkill would stand in the way of properly supporting wireless >> > > devices that are capable of waking the system up from sleep or hibernation >> > > when they receive a special wireless message. >> > > >> > > Since rfkill attempts to soft-block any transmitters during class suspend, >> > >> > why does it interfere with suspend anyway? >> >> The class makes sure that all transmitters are blocked on suspend. You'd >> have to ask Ivo for the reason, but AFAIK, it is for both safety and to help >> conserve power. > > I think that handler was added by Dmitry, but I see no real reason for > issuing the BLOCK event during suspend. However the handlers should > be used to prevent state changes to drivers after they have been suspended. Sounds reasonable. Thanks Tomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
