[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b1db4846-9da1-9af4-4b3f-53ebf2e527a2@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 07:59:39 -0500
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Iain Lane <iain@...ngesquash.org.uk>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] PCI/ACPI: Use device constraints instead of dates
to opt devices into D3
On 8/4/23 01:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 09:07:43AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 10:18:07AM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Some of them, at least the Apollo Lake ones were used in IVI systems
>> that did not run Windows IIRC.
>
> And if it matters, they even don't have EFI complaint BIOS.
>
Thanks. I agree then; to avoid causing regressions or building a
monster list we should at least try to work in the confines of improving
the situation with an extra optional check that doesn't fail if not present.
Hopefully the approach from my v9 series works for this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists