Suspend vs Network Traffic - blockers
carrano at laptop.org
Tue Aug 12 12:10:56 EDT 2008
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org> wrote:
> Hi Ricardo,
> > There are at least two mechanisms that need to be in place for both
> > things to be able to operate together without causing major issues:
> > 1 - The multicast address populating on the firmware, that is
> > needed for collaboration to work: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6818
> We're using the "testing" kernel branch for 8.2, and the latest testing
> kernels are in the latest Joyride builds. Could you or Deepak confirm
> that the patches you'd like are in there?
I think Deepak is the person to answer to this.
> > 2 - The signature based filter, that is needed for ARP to work
> > (keeping in mind that no ARP, no unicast traffic, nothing):
> > http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6993#comment:2
> As above.
> > It is also very important that the configurations are done
> > properly. As you can see in
> > http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6993#comment:2 wake on ARP will not be
> > set automagically.
> > A configuration example can be found in:
> > http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6993#comment:3
> Would you recommend keeping track of our current eth0/msh0 IP addresses
> when programming wake-on-all-ARP, or should we just enable it globally?
Hm. That's a good question. Between implementention complexity (of
changing the filter eveytime an IP changes) and power efficiency (of
preventing some unnecessary wake ups), at this point in time (pretty
close to release), I would be inclined towards the second approach.
> (By the way, the EC now suppresses 8388 wakeups when in sleep/lid closed
> mode, so we don't need to change the filter/wol behavior when switching
> between suspend and sleep; we can leave it in "suspend" configuration.)
> - Chris.
> Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org>
More information about the Devel