Re: [PATCH 8/8] rfkill: add support for wake-on-wireless-packet

[Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 19:30 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 16:27 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 02 Aug 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 15:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > > > Currently, rfkill would stand in the way of properly supporting wireless
> > > > > devices that are capable of waking the system up from sleep or hibernation
> > > > > when they receive a special wireless message.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since rfkill attempts to soft-block any transmitters during class suspend,
> > > > 
> > > > why does it interfere with suspend anyway?
> > > 
> > > The class makes sure that all transmitters are blocked on suspend.  You'd
> > > have to ask Ivo for the reason, but AFAIK, it is for both safety and to help
> > > conserve power.
> > 
> > rfkill shouldn't be touching stuff during suspend.
> 
> rfkill shouldn't *need* to touch stuff during suspend.  But for that to be
> true, all drivers using rfkill need to properly suspend in the first place.
> 
> And that's more than just drivers/net/wireless.
> 
> > In the OLPC libertas case, the radio may remain _ON_ during suspend,
> > because the OLPC machines are expected to suspend/resume many times per
> > second, and the radio must continue to participate in the mesh during
> > that time.  The only case where the radio gets blocked is when the user
> > requests it or when regulations require it.
> 
> Yes.  And the fact that rfkill stood in the way of doing that is a bug.
> However, even my first try of a patch would already allow libertas to
> declare it doesn't want rfkill to bother it on suspend.
> 
> It is very clear some drivers don't want rfkill to block radios on suspend.
> Really.  So far, libertas and iwl* are on my list of "don't want" or "don't
> need".  From what I can see, PCI-based rt2xxx is also "don't need".  And I
> can assume everything in drivers/misc is "don't need" without too much risk
> of being wrong.
> 
> But the OPPOSITE is not clear at all to me.  I don't know whether the other
> users of rfkill need a radio block on suspend or not.  Unless someone can
> look over *all* in-tree users of linux/rfkill.h and state that none of them
> need it because all of them DO shutdown their devices on suspend, I will
> have to ask the maintainers of every single one about it before I ask a
> patch to be merged.  I already looked, and I don't know enough to have a
> definitive answer by myself.

Using rfkill to enforce suspend power policy at a kernel-level is just
wrong.  That's a policy decision for gnome-power-manager or
kde-power-manager or whatever.  At the very least, it should be an
option in sysfs to turn this behavior on or off.

Dan

> > Suspend != block, and tying suspend and rfkill together really is a
> > policy decision.  Thus, I don't agree that rfkill should block radios on
> > suspend.
> 
> If some drivers out there are relying on it to, we need to know that before
> we remove it completely.
>