Isn't Wifi supposed to be off by default?

Andy Green andy at
Wed Jan 14 12:55:24 CET 2009

Hash: SHA1

Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| Andy Green wrote:
|> but
|> the stuff to control power properly is waiting on Werner finishing
|> squeezing as much email as possible out of it [...]
| Says he who keeps on starting those arguments ;-) By the way,
| have you noticed that my "unnecessary" questions have yielded a
| completely new consensus among the "owners" of rfkill ?

Nope, what is this new discovery about turning off WLAN?  Will it
generate a patch at some point?

|> [...] and doing the rfkill
|> stuff, at which point we will rip out the existing arrangements and
|> leave it alone by default.
| Hmm, I think you should be careful about advertizing rfkill as a
| power-saving mechanism, because that's not what it is designed to
| be. In our case, the implementation will end up being equivalent
| to unbind/bind, which is as good as it gets, but there's nothing
| in the rfkill architecture that says that there isn't a better
| way to save power. In fact, you're not even guaranteed to save
| any power.
| Unfortunately, this means that power saving is still something
| whose mechanism needs to be decided on a case by case basis.

It's up to us if we bind our powersaving stuff to rfkill action, so long
as along the way it stops TX activity.

There is so much difficulty getting stuff done already that
unnecessarily including other projects in the loop when really it's not
an issue for them will just kill us dead.

- -Andy
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -


More information about the openmoko-kernel mailing list