On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 12:04 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 11:59 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > > or maybe gnome-power-manager (and whatever the kde equivalent is) should > > be driving this based on all the other policy decisions it makes? it's > > the thing that handles whether you're on battery or on AC, what your > > drive spin-down time is, it knows when your laptop lid is closed, what > > your display brightness is at, etc. > > > > it might use some information from NM as input, but the overall power > > manager is probably where the actual policy decisions should be made. > > Makes sense too. I guess that Marcel makes a compelling case for it > always being enabled, and Kalle says we need to have an override -- > which semantically needs to be in NM/connman since that's where the user > will look if the connection is flaky (because the AP is broken) Yeah, sounds OK. Just to be clear, problems with this code will appear on a *per-AP* basis, not a per-card basis, right? ie there are some stupid APs that won't work with it, but it won't be the case that a chipset will be broken for all APs, right? 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
