From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC] Runtime power management on ipw2100 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:04:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20070131130447.GF19643@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20070131075249.GA22115@srcf.ucam.org> <20070131102744.GA24424@srcf.ucam.org> <200701311148.20777.ak@suse.de> <1170244400.6746.31.camel@amit-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1170244400.6746.31.camel@amit-laptop> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Amit Kucheria Cc: Matthew Garrett , ipw2100-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, ext Andi Kleen , netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed 2007-01-31 13:53:20, Amit Kucheria wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:48 +0100, ext Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 11:27, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 12:13:04PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Matthew Garrett writes: > > > > > = > > > > > PCI seems to require a delay of 10ms when sequencing from D3 to D= 0, = > > > > > which probably isn't acceptable latency for an "up" state. > > > > = > > > > It might be if the interface has been idle for some time > > > > (and the delay is not busy looping of course) > > > = > > > Hm. How would this interact with receiving packets? > > = > > The hardware will hopefully have support to wake itself up when that = > > happens. > = > Yes. Low power states without ability to respond to wakeup interrupts > would be broken behaviour generally. Do you realy expect wifi to save significant ammount of power, while still listening for packets on wireless network? Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html