From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Corinna Vinschen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] r8169: Don't claim WoL works if LanWake flag is not set Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:02:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20151210220255.GB3507@calimero.vinschen.de> References: <1449655730-3328-1-git-send-email-vinschen@redhat.com> <1449657826-4461-1-git-send-email-vinschen@redhat.com> <20151209224306.GA5082@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20151210095135.GA21583@calimero.vinschen.de> <20151210204054.GA30391@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/" Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Realtek linux nic maintainers , Chun-Hao Lin , Hayes Wang , Corinna Vinschen To: Francois Romieu Return-path: Received: from mail-n.franken.de ([193.175.24.27]:50965 "EHLO mail-n.franken.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751134AbbLJWC6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:02:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151210204054.GA30391@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Dec 10 21:40, Francois Romieu wrote: > Corinna Vinschen : > [...] > > I could do this (after I could lay my hands on such a board, that is), > > but I'm not convinced that this makes a lot of sense for two reasons. >=20 > Ok, let's get this change applied. Whatever happens should not be > hard to manage (I'm thinking about other boards or BIOSes relying on the > current - broken as it can be - behavior to work correctly). >=20 > [...] > > 1. There is no global change in behaviour. The usual way to handle the > > WoL flags is to set the affected method flags and additionally set > > LanWake if any of the method flags is set. The fact that the method > > flags don't enable WoL without also settting the LanWake flag is > > documented. >=20 > I see no such thing in "7.5 Power Management Function" of the 8168c > registers datasheet. While Config3 states Magic Packet and Link Up > dependencies on Config1.PMEn, it says nothing about Config5.LanWake. >=20 > On old 8169 chipsets LanWake is autoloaded from EEPROM. >=20 > Plausible for Config5.{B, M, U}WF ? Ok. >=20 > Documented ? I am genuinely curious to know where. Ok, I reread the documentation I have, and I got that wrong it seems. Apparently the LanWake flag enables or disables the LANWAKE/LANWAKEB pin only but not the other possible PM events. So, self-NACKed. It's still a bit weird. On the machines I tested this on, if I disable LanWake and shutdown the machine, I can send, e.g., MagicPackets as much as I like, the machined don't come up. Isn't it a bit misleading then if ethtool reports that some WoL method is enabled but it doesn't work? Corinna --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWafaPAAoJEPU2Bp2uRE+gDSMQAJfsRIIEqFyf34WJvgI59Aoe rWCGPSiXEBDSXhloiBPtmsAFHkqQIrA1pxmMYmEOUUiWD8PT5i06xCeKDC8qDSl8 f9StbJVetAqvQ+5siLMJdWQsp2FlBKFIm1EXrcjRhRDTe8raVeYfyDoxSYl7rvTz 7NiXXwJY2iX0YEq05GRAR91AAt0GYg68cPZ4uYDI9IOujlVAdxh7GKIIL3zvaXQI VNULVx+8DF94d3ZmhJCz1ixuorcDPDCMZzPs/TMoVhgATTA0HwiCNdM+ZPqnzlxA AbDZ5d9O1JhXvEez6MWkAAIUA2aGVfkskZLvZnHJNC1+/aVGhcN/STHw0YybOe25 nAoe+K+y12nZHA1nMcFdixdqU7Vis5IzKw5iZfZxDTvNO9pmQCzzi87x2BxJoJs6 qkjc/VscNajrjhU82qbHMCiyT+o79cLq7am/CbzFleCZ84Yk3wF4DRobqVzeIsKz d9RlJR/HqgPdH+WaDnQzUGrRhFusACjClZwQleNp8bvVzSehC7sfWTXUEdK2XDar q43ytHalVmyaWSkwxO3lOb8KOk7FChYqu3IQo+PPx7HouQA6vLUU28UXfg0ryZ2F RUvNcHtaBsnAn0yGMADI1FQBhnCfd5DeNeiaigtkh88cCskJleK5jUF6TK+sz6S7 Zp6+B7XH5rdCrbsOOyfK =0v8n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/--