Idle-suspend a little too intrusive to user experience?

Paul Fox pgf at
Wed May 12 08:36:51 EDT 2010

john wrote:
 > >						   ...the biggest
 > > problem area in terms of suspending and not coming back is the
 > > network, and without "wake-on-precisely-what-i'm-waiting-for",
 > > that's problematic.
 > Most wireless and Ethernet chips can be configured to interrupt or
 > wake on precisely what you're waiting for.  They discard all packets
 > for other network addresses.  They discard 98% of multicasts that
 > you aren't listening for.  They even discard broadcasts if you ask
 > them to.  The really smart ones can ignore all broadcasts except for
 > ARPs that are for this machine (there's already a kernel interface for
 > this, "ethtool -s wol a", which we got working late in the XO-1.)

i understand that hardware does a lot of filtering.  i was
referring specifically to the 1.5's current lack of wake-on-arp
(thank you for making me realize there's no specific bug open for
this issue -- though it's buried in #9535), and also to bug #9960,
which describes a fairly serious bug in our wake-on-wlan behavior.

 > I don't know what wireless chip made it into the XO-1.5 (the XO-1.5

it's a marvell 8686.

 paul fox, pgf at

More information about the Devel mailing list