From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: Wakeup and S states Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:32:29 -0400 Message-ID: <4DFA13FD.6020304@cfl.rr.com> References: <4DF8CBC3.5070801@cfl.rr.com> <20110615154457.GA13863@srcf.ucam.org> <4DFA09CB.9040909@iradimed.com> <20110616141517.GB15242@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.122]:33291 "EHLO cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757312Ab1FPOcg (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:32:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110616141517.GB15242@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 6/16/2011 10:15 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Yes. How would the kernel know that you don't want WoL in that case? That was my original point; the kernel architecture seems lacking since it does not consider what S state you are talking about wrt wakeup capability and policy. I can see the argument that policy should be dynamically changed in user space, but it seems that the kernel really needs to track the capability as it relates to S state so you don't try to enable wakeup in states where it is not possible.