From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:39684 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753820AbZDVUp5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:45:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:44:08 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless , Marcel Holtmann , Kalle Valo , "Guy, Wey-Yi W" , Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: powersaving when interface is up but not associated Message-ID: <20090422204408.GK3288@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20090422_224601_585018_A3761E80) References: <1240431356.30082.18.camel@johannes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1240431356.30082.18.camel@johannes.local> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:15:56PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi! > > Just had this idea -- when our networking interfaces are UP, but not > actually doing anything, the RF chains consume power. This is, often, > the default state, since you'll have your wifi on due to NM wanting to > find APs, but not associated, for example when on the road. Sure, you > can manually turn it off, but... > > However, it doesn't seem necessary. When we are not associated to an AP, > and there are no extra interfaces in mac80211 active like monitor > interfaces, it seems that we could very well turn off the radio while > not scanning. It would be entirely trivial for mac80211 to do this, > probably a 20 line patch or so (need some bookkeeping about why radio is > disabled so it's not just four lines). Makes sense to me... -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.