On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:43 PM, <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of [cut] >> I think changing that would help communicate what's going on here and at >> least let the user know the result will be that the firmware is still controlling >> ASPM due to the _OSC failure. You seem to be assuming that all systems returning "unsupported UUID" from the PCI host bridge _OSC will always fall into the same category, but what if they don't? What if at least some of them are really broken? >> Something else that I think Andy recommended a while back was at that >> time try to evaluate NEXP and display its value and an associated message >> in debug logs when _OSC fails. Would you be amenable to a change like that? > > That seems dangerous if NEXP is anything other than a SystemMemory > variable. I don't know if there's a clean way to check that before > evaluating it. (i.e. we don't want to hit some other thing called > NEXP that has side effects.) Well, that's generic code and NEXP is not generic really, so agreed. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
