From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bmailout2.hostsharing.net (bmailout2.hostsharing.net [83.223.78.240]) (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 30B2A25E46C; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:25:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.78.240 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739215555; cv=none; b=NWqf09S0iyXSu41ITE3SKGkMoJyu0dDEh+hwQEzvsMX/+VUbNpcRu7uMTbTKv1e9HXq57OwZymVb/BNHW1m2IxEIvgrXqyMoUw1k3g67trl6SuHDppbv+pPROLoPgCwY/e+uHIeUYDG7UzH/5toVqmL7YfCspEHU35dH8siQceU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739215555; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JLrIHvcMfDESnQCoY0goFByP4FrecpGOavPA8S3yvAQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=DLGRFbTQYvL3Jnzj1vJ7z9mo+BCTCeVz8473NvdPRd6pXN5QV8WaemmhSMUzNAnmatRPHmV0s3DFLjxUWgj/AAxlCXEIB/7Dw8eGGnQnhObWbzY4By6rOEIz17v+S7REfq8QwbRxyxyhmzDPrDyGyaWjfj22GDwla48IaMI1/10= 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=83.223.78.240 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 [IPv6:2a01:37:1000::53df:5f1c:0]) (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 bmailout2.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4761228008798; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:25:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id 17F603EB81E; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:25:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:25:50 +0100 From: Lukas Wunner To: Lleyton Gray Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , gargaditya08@live.com, 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> 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: Hi Lleyton, my apologies for the delay. On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 07:09:15PM -0800, Lleyton Gray wrote: > On 12/29/24 10:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 at 11:38, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > The original issue was that the integrated GPU is hidden (powered off) > > > unless the set_os protocol is used. So only the discrete GPU is > > > available, which results in terrible battery life. Using set_os > > > keeps the iGPU exposed so the OS can switch to it and power off > > > the dGPU. > > > > Yeah, so it would be good to know what issue are trying to fix with > > this patch. > > I believe this is another issue that requires the same set_os quirk. In > specific, amdgpu fails to initialize when using an AMD eGPU in a T2 system, > unless the set_os protocol is used. Because it's currently quirked for the > product names of dual-gpu T2 Macs, if you're on a system that doesn't match > those names (ex. 2018 Mac Mini), there's no way to enable the protocol to > get an eGPU working. How does the amdgpu initialization issue manifest itself exactly? Could you either provide full dmesg output both for the failing case and the success case (i.e. with your patch)? E.g. could you open a bug on bugzilla.kernel.org and attach the dmesg output or at least provide a dmesg excerpt with the relevant amdgpu initialization messages? Any patch to fix the issue needs to provide a proper explanation of what's going wrong without the patch and why, so that anyone working on the code in the future can understand why the change was made. Just stating that amdgpu fails to initialize isn't sufficient in my view. Thanks, Lukas