From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Auke Kok Subject: Re: Wake On Lan device semantics Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:44:30 -0800 Message-ID: <454BF07E.2070207@intel.com> References: <20061103152025.5d27bd8d@freekitty> <454BD44D.2060005@intel.com> <20061103155006.68099f6e@freekitty> <454BEEAD.70108@intel.com> <20061103173751.581ca5ab@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Garzik , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:36170 "EHLO mga02.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753169AbWKDBom (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 20:44:42 -0500 To: Stephen Hemminger In-Reply-To: <20061103173751.581ca5ab@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:36:45 -0800 > Auke Kok wrote: > >> Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 >>> Auke Kok wrote: >>> >>>> Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>>> It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system >>>>> if it is down. >>>> before suspend existed this was the only useful case for WoL. Why does it not seem a >>>> good idea to wake up a machine that was shutdown (and thus the interface `downed`) ? >>>> >>>> Auke >>> Interestingly it looks like e100 is one of the ones that only wakes from suspend (not when down). >> that would be a bug, I'll have to get that checked especially after the latest changes >> to it. >> > > Sorry, my bad my test machine was not setup properly. I don't blame you, WoL is one of the hardest features to get right, especially with all the various e100{,0} hardware and options that influence it (manageability, eeproms, etc). On top of that there's this blob called BIOS messing it all up after a powercycle :) Cheers, Auke