Bad interaction between sleep timeouts and Salut?

Daniel Drake dsd at
Thu Sep 16 14:46:34 EDT 2010

On 16 September 2010 18:11, John Gilmore <gnu at> wrote:
> It's pretty simple, actually.  When in "idle suspend", the system should
> remain fully functional, just burning fewer ergs.  It's an optimization,
> not a change of behavior.
> This means the system should wake up anytime it would've gotten an
> interrupt during normal operation.  Which means for any unicast
> packet, any ARP packet directed to it, and any multicast packet that
> it's listening for.

Right. The Marvell firmware already has a load of logic for deciding
whether to pass frames to the host when the host is powered up, i.e.
it only passes:
 1. Broadcast
 2. Multicast in a group that we're subscribed to
 3. Unicast to this particular XO

It should be a simple firmware tweak to make the same filter apply to
the "The host is asleep, I've received a frame, do I wake it up?"

This will result in a lot of wakeups, but I think this is the only way
to reliably achieve this optimization without affecting the behaviour
of the system. And optimizations can happen afterwards to reduce the


More information about the Devel mailing list