Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:3327 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753537AbYHEODP (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:03:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:00:05 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Dan Williams Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Ivo van Doorn Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] rfkill: add support for wake-on-wireless-packet Message-ID: <20080805140005.GA5925@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20080805_160318_992206_80806D72) References: <1217700664-20792-1-git-send-email-hmh@hmh.eng.br> <1217700664-20792-9-git-send-email-hmh@hmh.eng.br> <1217703723.8621.50.camel@johannes.berg> <20080802192704.GB24253@khazad-dum.debian.net> <1217864565.3139.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080804223052.GG24927@khazad-dum.debian.net> <1217890611.17793.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080804233525.GI24927@khazad-dum.debian.net> <1217941409.26251.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1217941409.26251.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:03:29AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 20:35 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > 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. > > Ah! I seem to have misunderstood you. If some drivers _do_ need the > current block-on-suspend behavior, I feel like that should be an > internal driver decision that rfkill shouldn't need to be aware of. > Drivers know how to suspend themselves; we shouldn't expect rfkill to > know how certain hardware needs to suspend. I agree with Dan. Blocking and suspending should be separate operations. John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com