[Nouveau] [PATCH 1/7] Revert "ACPI / OSI: Add OEM _OSI string to enable dGPU direct output"

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 5:51:23 PM CEST Karol Herbst wrote:
> is there any update on the testing with my patches? On the hardware I
> had access to those patches helped, but I can't know if it also helped
> on the hardware for which those workarounds where actually added.

Alex Hung and Mario need to answer this question I think.

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:52 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:47:35 AM CEST Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 07:31, Karol Herbst <kherbst at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This reverts commit 28586a51eea666d5531bcaef2f68e4abbd87242c.
> > > >
> > > > The original commit message didn't even make sense. AMD _does_ support it and
> > > > it works with Nouveau as well.
> > > >
> > > > Also what was the issue being solved here? No references to any bugs and not
> > > > even explaining any issue at all isn't the way we do things.
> > > >
> > > > And even if it means a muxed design, then the fix is to make it work inside the
> > > > driver, not adding some hacky workaround through ACPI tricks.
> > > >
> > > > And what out of tree drivers do or do not support we don't care one bit anyway.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think the reverts should be merged via Rafael's tree as the original
> > > patches went in via there, and we should get them in asap.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>
> >
> > The _OSI strings are to be dropped when all of the needed support is there in
> > drivers, so they should go away along with the requisite driver changes.
> >
> 
> that goes beside the point. firmware level workarounds for GPU driver
> issues were pushed without consulting with upstream GPU developers.
> That's something which shouldn't have happened in the first place. And
> yes, I am personally annoyed by the fact, that people know about
> issues, but instead of contacting the proper persons and working on a
> proper fix, we end up with stupid firmware level workarounds. I can't
> see why we ever would have wanted such workarounds in the first place.
> 
> And I would be much happier if the next time something like that comes
> up, that the drm mailing list will be contacted as well or somebody
> involved.
> 
> We could have also just disable the feature inside the driver (and
> probably we should have done that a long time ago, so that is
> essentially our fault, but still....)
> 
> > I'm all for dropping then when that's the case, so please feel free to add ACKs
> > from me to the patches in question at that point.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rafael
> >
> >
> >
>