Hi,

I've recently installed Arch on my laptop and got a odd problem that I
haven't encountered so far.

Whenever I put my laptop into "Suspend to RAM" my wireless LED stays on,
which is quite annoying. It probably doesn't use that much energy, but
still I want to have nothing blinking, but the power LED.

I investigated a little bit into it, and found out that the wireless LED
stays on when at least one of the following devices is activated:
Bluetooth, WWAN, Wireless LAN.

This makes totally sense. As soon as blocking all three of these devices
using rfkill, the LED turns off. I'm probably could now write a script
that would get executed during "Suspend to RAM" using pm-utils.

However before hacking around this, I would like to know what the
expected way for this actually is. Doesn't a "Suspend to RAM" invoke
rfkill at some point or at least shouldn't it try to disable such hardware?

As I haven't experienced this issue with my former laptop, I'm not
exactly sure whether this is a bug or a feature, so I'm glad about any
input you give me on that.

Best regards,
Karol Babioch

On 12/03/2011 05:26 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:

Hi,

I've recently installed Arch on my laptop and got a odd problem that I
haven't encountered so far.

Whenever I put my laptop into "Suspend to RAM" my wireless LED stays on,
which is quite annoying. It probably doesn't use that much energy, but
still I want to have nothing blinking, but the power LED.

I investigated a little bit into it, and found out that the wireless LED
stays on when at least one of the following devices is activated:
Bluetooth, WWAN, Wireless LAN.

This makes totally sense. As soon as blocking all three of these devices
using rfkill, the LED turns off. I'm probably could now write a script
that would get executed during "Suspend to RAM" using pm-utils.

However before hacking around this, I would like to know what the
expected way for this actually is. Doesn't a "Suspend to RAM" invoke
rfkill at some point or at least shouldn't it try to disable such hardware?

As I haven't experienced this issue with my former laptop, I'm not
exactly sure whether this is a bug or a feature, so I'm glad about any
input you give me on that.

Best regards,
Karol Babioch



I think new in 3.1 (might have been 3.0) was wireless wake-on-lan. You might be
able to use ethtool to see if you have WOL enabled for your wireless card which
would prevent it from being powered down.

Hi,

Am 04.12.2011 01:40, schrieb Matthew Monaco:
> I think new in 3.1 (might have been 3.0) was wireless wake-on-lan. You
> might be able to use ethtool to see if you have WOL enabled for your
> wireless card which would prevent it from being powered down.

My wireless card doesn't seem to support WOL its how I interpret the
following output:

[root@vpcs ~]# ethtool wlan0
Settings for wlan0:
Link detected: yes

Best regards,
Karol Babioch

On 2011-12-04 14:11, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 04.12.2011 01:40, schrieb Matthew Monaco:
>> I think new in 3.1 (might have been 3.0) was wireless wake-on-lan. You
>> might be able to use ethtool to see if you have WOL enabled for your
>> wireless card which would prevent it from being powered down.
>
> My wireless card doesn't seem to support WOL its how I interpret the
> following output:
>
> [root@vpcs ~]# ethtool wlan0
> Settings for wlan0:
> Link detected: yes
>
> Best regards,
> Karol Babioch
>

`ethtool` is for Ethernet devices only. Use `iw` for wireless.

| $ iw phy phy0 wowlan show
| command failed: Operation not supported (-95)

Hi,

Am 04.12.2011 18:55, schrieb Mantas M.:
> `ethtool` is for Ethernet devices only. Use `iw` for wireless.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. However my device doesn't seem to
support it, so I'm back at the beginning.

Best regards,
Karol Babioch