From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bmailout1.hostsharing.net (bmailout1.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F3576A039; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:28:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.95.100 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721838509; cv=none; b=HE1PcsJvzw+LTbFil0wFBqFWq3NCYH442uqVk4L5pxXNCOy1kVBRx2fmEjoqgi84SzeyPRwlIxbnWytv+8iKh55Val9HdWoTDgx4dhBoeIsnGr/pLX1nk1eptklFsnzmEE/PT/7OHEYXjsxQN9hQger8U0JeubgDWFiOpQHbe4s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721838509; c=relaxed/simple; bh=M6fu0sgBXBIH9ELMRIIMevO5HoNVkN1QIhnVFirQrbg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=SoRbCgK3BzgSNt7+cEJQHFkwjCW0SwziWok2p/bvAJjzh6H4ihkEOdu+JdTK+uRpiKNoWNzNJhLIX5HFjSoBv5A2uYfI1HZs0nNl9PpxFuVQuSakMPo6lkD8zPp16Cq3chSlK2rNbdK0TdKrvSCIGrujhOevusbZ2ftpKnNXwdU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.95.100 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (verified OK)) by bmailout1.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58B0300002CB; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:28:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id 9D6E42D32F; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:28:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:28:17 +0200 From: Lukas Wunner To: Aditya Garg Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Hans de Goede , Kerem Karabay , Orlando Chamberlain , "sharpenedblade@proton.me" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] efi/x86: Call set_os() protocol on dual GPU Macs Message-ID: References: <20240701140940.2340297-4-ardb+git@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 04:21:03PM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: > https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-open-source/1479158-linux-6-11-efi-will-fake-that-it-s-booting-apple-macos-to-fix-some-dual-gpu-macs?p=1479205#post1479205 > > By looking at this post, it seems to affect non T2 Macs as well. Disabling iGPU if dGPU is present was a behavior that existed well before T2 Macs, yes. That affected MacBook Pros from Haswell onward. However the question is since when iGPU is disabled if an eGPU is present. I had never heard of this before. It would be good to have more datapoints to come up with a quirk that's as narrowly applied as possible to avoid regressions. Thanks, Lukas