I wonder if anybody has really ever tested that? Because I think it's broken.. In particular, I made the mistake of not enabling CONFIG_PM on a new laptop, and it caused some *seriously* nasty-to-debug problems. The mac80211 code goes crazy, that upsets the wireless driver, and then the wrieless driver in question had a nasty bug where it would double-release its firmware, which then caused vmalloc corruption and all kinds of really odd recursive panics etc. And as far as I can tell, the root cause of the problem is a bad choice in net/mac80211/main.c: int ieee80211_register_hw(struct ieee80211_hw *hw) { ... if ((hw->wiphy->wowlan.flags || hw->wiphy->wowlan.n_patterns) #ifdef CONFIG_PM && (!local->ops->suspend || !local->ops->resume) #endif ) return -EINVAL; which means that if the wiphy says it supports wake-on-wireless lan, and CONFIG_PM isn't enabled, we'll return -EINVAL and will refuse to do any wireless at all. It's that a bit extreme? Or outright stupid? What is the advantage of saying that "if you don't have CONFIG_PM enabled, we'll just refuse to register any hardware that talks about it's wake-on-wireless patterns"? Maybe there is some reason for that return -EINVAL, but I don't think it makes sense with that particular placement of #ifdef CONFIG_PM. Maybe if the #ifdef was around the whole test? Or maybe it should just be removed. Or am I missing some big reason for why it makes sense to do that? Hmm? I'll make a separate bug-report email to the intel iwlwifi people about their absolutely horribly broken error handling which then made it such a disaster, but I thought I'd bring the generic mac80211 issue up. I don't think there are a lot of drivers that do the whole wowlan thing, and obviously most people use wireless on laptops where you want CONFIG_PM anyway, so it probably hasn't triggered very much. Linus -- 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