From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: more driver shutdown WoL regression. Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:02:24 +0000 Message-ID: <1320933744.18929.82.camel@deadeye> References: <20111108223502.GA20437@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20111109222556.GA8226@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20111110104117.GA23906@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hayeswang , , 'Stefan Becker' , 'David Miller' To: Francois Romieu Return-path: Received: from exchange.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:14922 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751498Ab1KJOCe (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:02:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20111110104117.GA23906@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 11:41 +0100, Francois Romieu wrote: > hayeswang : > [...] > > I find that the magic packet which I send is the broadcast packet, and the one > > which you send is the unicast packet. That is, you could wake up the system by > > using broadcast magic packet for the previous chips without the patch. However, > > if you prefer to unicast magic packet, this patch is necessary. Besides, no > > matter broadcast or unicast magic packet, the patch is necessary for 8105, > > 8168e, and later chips. > > Ok, it makes some sense now. > > I am inclined to enable a broad understanding of ethtool WAKE_MAGIC > feature as AMD's magic packet white paper does not limit it to > broadcast packets and explicitely quotes unicast and multicast. > Ben (and others), any opinion ? [...] Sorry, I've never looked into WoL in detail so I'm not sure quite what the intended semantics of WAKE_MAGIC are. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.