On Mon, 04 Aug 2008, Dan Williams wrote: > > But the OPPOSITE is not clear at all to me. I don't know whether the other > > users of rfkill need a radio block on suspend or not. Unless someone can > > look over *all* in-tree users of linux/rfkill.h and state that none of them > > need it because all of them DO shutdown their devices on suspend, I will > > have to ask the maintainers of every single one about it before I ask a > > patch to be merged. I already looked, and I don't know enough to have a > > definitive answer by myself. > > Using rfkill to enforce suspend power policy at a kernel-level is just > wrong. That's a policy decision for gnome-power-manager or > kde-power-manager or whatever. At the very least, it should be an > option in sysfs to turn this behavior on or off. There is no way I am adding an interface for userspace to decide how a driver+rfkill stack should go in order to properly suspend a device. The kernel is to get it right by itself. It already knows whether the device was blocked or not before the suspend. And, when it is suppored by the device, the device driver already knows if it is part of a non-stop mesh (libertas), or has to have WoWL enabled, etc. And it is already damn clear that what we currently have (rfkill always blocks on suspend) is not the correct way to go about it. WHAT I want to know now is whether there are any drivers out there which need the current behaviour. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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
