From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Wake On Lan device semantics Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:51:25 -0500 Message-ID: <454BD5FD.2030502@pobox.com> References: <20061103152025.5d27bd8d@freekitty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:51100 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932500AbWKCXva (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 18:51:30 -0500 To: Stephen Hemminger In-Reply-To: <20061103152025.5d27bd8d@freekitty> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I am working on getting WOL to work on sky2 (and then skge). But in the process I > noticed that the semantics of WOL seems to be device dependent. I assume that WOL > should work when device is suspended. But some drivers also support WOL when > the device is down (or even removed). [...] > It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system > if it is down. Maybe if the kernel fully supported dormant, maybe, but > when device is down it shouldn't impact the system. You seem to be muddling "device", "driver", and "system" together. The purpose of WOL is being able to turn on a system remotely, if it is in a power-off or sleep state. So, if the system is -on- and the interface is down and/or driver is unloaded, are you saying WOL is a problem somehow? Jeff