From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bmailout3.hostsharing.net (bmailout3.hostsharing.net [176.9.242.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67BC21FBE80; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 04:56:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=176.9.242.62 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739422581; cv=none; b=bFX3fwLQMNffIvl/qg7Yi8RI79C3sprTalNvZKj2Bn6jLBt94FenW7v+Im+0LF5hFr9VsjEnuH344t3JP3hBEa+qDi4uJD8oimEHwVgIj0LjHwmd9mUlj6ufxd2Z/EkXjY3xiWFy3XnuW64e4Al2CJcXvm6skqcZv166kMzKvxI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739422581; c=relaxed/simple; bh=N8p5qa++4nVZSAnRKJ/tqr5QpmCFNX686rlWEztOYho=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VTCQprCYxODFOE0IoCLyc6XelX2qotyKioSDQsAwDIMFhaFqccM8f2OSJO4Aw7xlVq6m/pdBZD/I0MxB0JKp9B0s39AHg2ewMcshZtiuOJQqBG0RQGQwZjV+DpcBl1jMdeZA2XVrzRzE8WXUBmJODGCqsf2m68hu+bX5TDVp7eA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=176.9.242.62 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (verified OK)) by bmailout3.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C0A7100DA1C2; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 05:56:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id 48D0D34D01D; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 05:56:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 05:56:09 +0100 From: Lukas Wunner To: Aditya Garg Cc: Lleyton Gray , Ard Biesheuvel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efistub: Add options for forcing Apple set_os protocol Message-ID: References: <20241228202212.89069-1-lleyton@fyralabs.com> <52B0B784-2FB5-4B7D-8FB6-A7B694EDDFC3@live.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52B0B784-2FB5-4B7D-8FB6-A7B694EDDFC3@live.com> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 04:05:12PM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: > > On 11 Feb 2025, at 1:28AM, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > FWIW, below would be my suggestion for replacing the DMI-based quirk > > with one that is based on the number of GPUs. > > > > It should invoke the apple_set_os protocol both on dual GPU laptops > > as well as ones with an eGPU, hence my expectation is that it should > > fix the issue reported by Lleyton. > > This patch does not enable the os set protocol on my MacBook Pro 16 inch 2019 > > journalctl -k: https://pastebin.com/7etWy0D5 Hm, perhaps Apple's EFI disables the iGPU by default and re-enables it upon the set_os protocol call. Or I've botched the patch, but I just double-checked the logic and it seems fine to me. Could somebody with an eGPU test whether the patch results in the expected invocation of set_os (and thus a working eGPU)? If it does, we'd just have to keep apple_match_product_name() as an alternative condition under which set_os is called. Thanks, Lukas