Re: wake-on-lan

2020-07-17 Thread Michael J. Baars
On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 18:09 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > On 16.07.2020 09:28, Michael J. Baars wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 15:39 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:27:20AM +0200, Michael J. Baars wrote: > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > > > > This is my network card:

Re: wake-on-lan

2020-07-16 Thread Heiner Kallweit
On 16.07.2020 09:28, Michael J. Baars wrote: > On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 15:39 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:27:20AM +0200, Michael J. Baars wrote: >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>> This is my network card: >>> >>> 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. >>> RTL81

Re: wake-on-lan

2020-07-16 Thread Michael J. Baars
On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 15:17 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > On 15.07.2020 11:27, Michael J. Baars wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > This is my network card: > > > > 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. > > RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 0c) > >

Re: wake-on-lan

2020-07-16 Thread Michael J. Baars
On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 15:39 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:27:20AM +0200, Michael J. Baars wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > This is my network card: > > > > 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. > > RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Cont

Re: wake-on-lan

2020-07-15 Thread Heiner Kallweit
On 15.07.2020 15:39, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:27:20AM +0200, Michael J. Baars wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> This is my network card: >> >> 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. >> RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 0c) >>

Re: wake-on-lan

2020-07-15 Thread Michal Kubecek
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:27:20AM +0200, Michael J. Baars wrote: > Hi Michal, > > This is my network card: > > 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. > RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 0c) > Subsystem: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Dev

Re: wake-on-lan

2020-07-15 Thread Heiner Kallweit
On 15.07.2020 11:27, Michael J. Baars wrote: > Hi Michal, > > This is my network card: > > 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. > RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 0c) > Subsystem: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 0123 > Kern

Re: wake on LAN with sky2

2006-12-13 Thread Tino Keitel
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 14:58:18 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:27:20 +0100 > Tino Keitel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > I just tried the sk98lin driver version 8.41.2.3 and was happy that it > > seems to support wake on LAN with the Marvell 88E8053 P

Re: wake on LAN with sky2

2006-12-13 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:27:20 +0100 Tino Keitel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I just tried the sk98lin driver version 8.41.2.3 and was happy that it > seems to support wake on LAN with the Marvell 88E8053 PCIe chip. > However, after resume from suspend to RAM, the machine hangs. As it

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:02:30 -0800 (PST) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:51:25 -0500 The purpose of WOL is being able to turn on a system remotely, if it is in a power-off or sleep state. So, if

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:36:45 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stephen Hemminger wrote: It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system i

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:36:45 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 > > Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >>> It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system > >>> i

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread David Miller
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:42:49 -0500 > David Miller wrote: > > I guess you can argue that, like IP addresses, this WoL thing is an > > attribute of the "system". > > Yeah, it's definitely a system state. When the magic packet arrives, > the WOL wire on the

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Jeff Garzik
David Miller wrote: From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:51:25 -0500 The purpose of WOL is being able to turn on a system remotely, if it is in a power-off or sleep state. So, if the system is -on- and the interface is down and/or driver is unloaded, are you saying

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:02:30 -0800 (PST) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:51:25 -0500 > > > The purpose of WOL is being able to turn on a system remotely, if it is > > in a power-off or sleep state. > > > > So, if the sy

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread David Miller
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:51:25 -0500 > The purpose of WOL is being able to turn on a system remotely, if it is > in a power-off or sleep state. > > So, if the system is -on- and the interface is down and/or driver is > unloaded, are you saying WOL is a pro

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Jeff Garzik
Stephen Hemminger wrote: I am working on getting WOL to work on sky2 (and then skge). But in the process I noticed that the semantics of WOL seems to be device dependent. I assume that WOL should work when device is suspended. But some drivers also support WOL when the device is down (or even r

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ide

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ide

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
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 - To