On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 16:27 -0300, 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. rfkill shouldn't be touching stuff during suspend. In the OLPC libertas case, the radio may remain _ON_ during suspend, because the OLPC machines are expected to suspend/resume many times per second, and the radio must continue to participate in the mesh during that time. The only case where the radio gets blocked is when the user requests it or when regulations require it. Suspend != block, and tying suspend and rfkill together really is a policy decision. Thus, I don't agree that rfkill should block radios on suspend. Dan -- 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
