> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 05:45:43PM +0000, Limonciello, Mario wrote: > > > > I guess what Bastien is getting at is for newer devices supported by > class > > > > drivers rather than having to store an allowlist in udev rules, can we > set > > > > the allowlist in the kernel instead. Then distributions that either > don't > > > > use systemd or don't regularly update udev rules from systemd can take > > > > advantage of better defaults on modern hardware. > > > > > > That's what the "hardware ids" database is supposed to be handling. > > > It's easier to manage this in userspace than in the kernel. > > > > > > I just love systems where people feel it is safer to update the kernel > > > than it is to update a hardware database file :) > > > > > > > The one item that stood out to me in that rules file was 8086:a0ed. > > > > It's listed as "Volteer XHCI", but that same device ID is actually > present > > > > in an XPS 9310 in front of me as well and used by the xhci-pci kernel > > > module. > > > > > > That's an Intel PCI device id. If someone else is abusing that number, > > > I'm sure Intel would want to know about it and would be glad to go after > > > them. > > > > Sorry I wasn't intending to insinuate an abuse of the number, but rather > that > > the PCI device in the "Volteer" product and that in XPS 9310 appear are the > > same so they are possibly using the same hardware for this device. > > Ok, but again, given that the device might be on different transports, > the ability for the device to properly autosuspend might be different, > right? > I would think since it's provided by the PCH unlikely to be different transports. I'm not sure though, Matthias might need to confirm. On my side if I don't put that device into autosuspend the power consumption goes up.
