On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 01:15:08PM +0200, Sebastian Oswald wrote:
| >Glad to hear it worked.
| >
| >Hypothetically... I were to work on building a sysctl like:
| >
| >kern.acpi.mask_gpes=0x6f,0x42
| >
| >for people to enjoy normal OS operation before they get their
| >firmware fixes, would that be a good idea? Does it have a chance
| >to be accepted?
| >
| >My concern mainly is the interface. I don't know if a more
| >generic solution for all other interrupts need to be built,
| >not just ACPI GPE.
| >
| >Thanks,
| >Igor.
|
|
| This diff also solves the problem on my systems. Thanks!
|
| Regarding that sysctl: Given the large number of borked ACPI
| tables/implementations (and unwilling/incompetent vendors) out there,
| I think it would be benefical to have such masking capabilities.
How would a regular user know which GPEs to mask? This time, it's
0x6f, but what will it be on the next poor implementation?
I don't have an answer, but I think there's more to it than just
saying "mask these GPEs".
Paul
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
