On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:06 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:51 PM Karol Herbst <kherbst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:48 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:22 PM Mika Westerberg > > > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:52:22AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:18 AM Mika Westerberg > > > > > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > [cut] > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, so does it look like we are trying to work around AML that tried > > > > > to work around some problematic behavior in Linux at one point? > > > > > > > > Yes, it looks like so if I read the ASL right. > > > > > > OK, so that would call for a DMI-based quirk as the real cause for the > > > issue seems to be the AML in question, which means a firmware problem. > > > > > > > And I disagree as this is a linux specific workaround and windows goes > > that path and succeeds. This firmware based workaround was added, > > because it broke on Linux. > > Apparently so at the time it was added, but would it still break after > the kernel changes made since then? > > Moreover, has it not become harmful now? IOW, wouldn't it work after > removing the "Linux workaround" from the AML? > > The only way to verify that I can see would be to run the system with > custom ACPI tables without the "Linux workaround" in the AML in > question. Or running it with acpi_rev_override as suggested by Mika, which effectively would be the same thing.
