<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [radeon, amdgpu] Regression introduced in 4.8-rc3" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98505#c29">Comment # 29</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [radeon, amdgpu] Regression introduced in 4.8-rc3" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98505">bug 98505</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:alexdeucher@gmail.com" title="Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>"> Alex Deucher</a> <pre>(In reply to Peter Wu from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=98505#c23">comment #23</a>) > Alex, I don't think that the minimum date should change in 4.8 (and 4.9?) > due to the risk of breakage since it is not just limited to amdgpu/radeon. > Another concern is that while the year seems a good heuristic, it does not > match the checks that Windows 8 performs (which may or may not be an issue): > <a href="https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/drivers/bringup/firmware">https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/drivers/bringup/firmware</a>- > requirements-for-d3cold I agree that using the date is probably not a good idea, but it's what we have now. Adjusting the date seems lower impact than changing the policy for these kernels. > > I'll bring this up with linux-pci developers after the weekend. Should I > proceed with proposing workaround amdgpu/radeon patches? Sounds good. I generally don't like hacking around this in the driver, but I guess it's better than nothing at this point. Thanks for your help with this.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>