On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:20:09AM +0000, Williams, Dan J wrote: > > The platform can know which pm policies will save the most power. But > > since the solution doesn't apply to all PCIe devices (despite BIOS > > specifying it that way) I'll withdraw this patch. Thanks. > > Wait, why withdraw? In this case the platform is unfortunately > preventing the standard driver from making a proper determination. So > while I agree that it's not the BIOSes job, when the platform actively > prevents proper operation due to some ill conceived non-standard > platform property what is Linux left to do on these systems? > > The *patch* is not trying to overrule NVME, and the best I can say is > that the Intel Linux team was not in the loop when this was being > decided between the platform BIOS implemenation and whomever thought > they could just publish random ACPI properties that impacted NVME > operation [1]. > > So now David is trying to get these platform unbroken because they are > already shipping with this b0rkage. So can we please clearly mark this as a quirk and warn in the kernel log about a buggy BIOS?
