From: Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@gmail.com>
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] rfkill: add support for wake-on-wireless-packet
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:37:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200808052037.20508.IvDoorn@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080805140005.GA5925@tuxdriver.com>
On Tuesday 05 August 2008, John W. Linville wrote:
> 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.
Like I said earlier, the main thing rfkill should do is to prevent the callback
function being used while the device is suspended. And I definately agree
on the statement that drivers are in charge to do what should be done for
suspend.
Ivo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-05 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-02 18:10 [GIT PATCH] rfkill changes for 2.6.28, set 1 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-02 18:10 ` [PATCH 1/8] rfkill: detect bogus double-registering (v2) Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 8:04 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-02 18:10 ` [PATCH 2/8] rfkill: add default global states (v2) Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 8:05 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-02 18:10 ` [PATCH 3/8] rfkill: add __must_check annotations Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 8:05 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-02 18:11 ` [PATCH 4/8] rfkill: introduce RFKILL_STATE_MAX Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 8:06 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-02 18:11 ` [PATCH 5/8] rfkill: add WARN_ON and BUG_ON paranoia Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 8:07 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-03 8:57 ` Johannes Berg
2008-08-03 10:07 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-03 13:28 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 13:53 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-03 13:36 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 13:21 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 13:50 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-03 18:12 ` Johannes Berg
2008-08-02 18:11 ` [PATCH 6/8] rfkill: use the new WARN() Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 8:10 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-03 13:32 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-02 18:11 ` [PATCH 7/8] rfkill: rename rfkill_mutex to rfkill_global_mutex Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-02 18:11 ` [PATCH 8/8] rfkill: add support for wake-on-wireless-packet Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-02 19:02 ` Johannes Berg
2008-08-02 19:27 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-02 21:21 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-08-03 3:55 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 6:03 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-08-03 13:52 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 15:49 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-08-03 18:25 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 22:36 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-08-04 2:52 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 8:12 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-08-03 8:07 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-08-03 13:44 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-03 14:12 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-08-04 15:42 ` Dan Williams
2008-08-04 22:30 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-04 22:56 ` Dan Williams
2008-08-04 23:35 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-05 9:12 ` Johannes Berg
2008-08-05 12:48 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-05 12:50 ` Johannes Berg
2008-08-05 12:59 ` Johannes Berg
2008-08-05 20:44 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-05 20:54 ` Johannes Berg
2008-08-05 13:03 ` Dan Williams
2008-08-05 14:00 ` John W. Linville
2008-08-05 18:37 ` Ivo van Doorn [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200808052037.20508.IvDoorn@gmail.com \
--to=ivdoorn@gmail.com \
--cc=dcbw@redhat.com \
--cc=hmh@hmh.eng.br \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).