Subject: Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

From: Auke Kok <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:44:30 -0800

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:36:45 -0800
> Auke Kok <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800
>>> Auke Kok <[email-masked]> 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