Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: asus-armoury: add dGPU disable fallback DEVID for ProArt H7606 series

[Denis Benato]

On 9/15/26 22:38, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2026, busybox11 via B4 Relay wrote:
>
>> From: busybox11 <busybox11th@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Newer ASUS ProArt laptops (e.g. H7606 series) implement dGPU power
>> control on WMI DEVID 0x00090120 instead of the usual 0x00090020.
>> The default DEVID returns 0xFFFFFFFE on these models, so the
>> dgpu_disable firmware attribute is never created and the dGPU cannot
>> be re-enabled from Linux at all.
>>
>> Add a fallback probe for device ID 0x00090120 following the same
>> approach as the gpu_mux_dev_id probe.
>>
>> Details for 0x00090120 (confirmed on H7606W using direct WMNB calls
>> and inspecting the DSDT DEVS handler):
>>   - Reading DSTS returns 0x00010001 when the dGPU is off (CUMA=1),
>> 	or 0x00010000 when it's on.
>>   - Writing DEVS: 0 enables the dGPU (calls PG00._ON() + Notifies
>> 	PEGP, Device Check), and 1 disables or ejects it.
>>
>> This behavior matches the dgpu_disable attribute (1 = disabled).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: busybox11 <busybox11th@xxxxxxxxx>
> Unfortunately, we cannot accept anonymous or pseudonym signed 
> contributions so please sign off with your real name. For more 
> information about signing of patches, please see:
>
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>
>> ---
>>  drivers/platform/x86/asus-armoury.c        | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  include/linux/platform_data/x86/asus-wmi.h |  3 +++
>>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-armoury.c b/drivers/platform/x86/asus-armoury.c
>> index 495dc1e31..f39b52451 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-armoury.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/asus-armoury.c
>> @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ struct asus_armoury_priv {
>>  
>>  	u32 mini_led_dev_id;
>>  	u32 gpu_mux_dev_id;
>> +	u32 dgpu_disable_dev_id;
>>  };
>>  
>>  static struct asus_armoury_priv asus_armoury = {
>> @@ -452,8 +453,8 @@ static ssize_t gpu_mux_mode_current_value_store(struct kobject *kobj,
>>  	if (err)
>>  		return err;
>>  
>> -	if (armoury_has_devstate(ASUS_WMI_DEVID_DGPU)) {
>> -		err = armoury_get_devstate(NULL, &result, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_DGPU);
>> +	if (asus_armoury.dgpu_disable_dev_id) {
>> +		err = armoury_get_devstate(NULL, &result, asus_armoury.dgpu_disable_dev_id);
>>  		if (err)
>>  			return err;
>>  		if (result && !optimus) {
>> @@ -507,7 +508,8 @@ static ssize_t dgpu_disable_current_value_store(struct kobject *kobj,
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	scoped_guard(mutex, &asus_armoury.egpu_mutex) {
>> -		err = armoury_set_devstate(attr, disable ? 1 : 0, NULL, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_DGPU);
>> +		err = armoury_set_devstate(attr, disable ? 1 : 0, NULL,
>> +					   asus_armoury.dgpu_disable_dev_id);
>>  		if (err)
>>  			return err;
>>  	}
>> @@ -516,7 +518,7 @@ static ssize_t dgpu_disable_current_value_store(struct kobject *kobj,
>>  
>>  	return count;
>>  }
>> -ASUS_WMI_SHOW_INT(dgpu_disable_current_value, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_DGPU);
>> +ASUS_WMI_SHOW_INT(dgpu_disable_current_value, asus_armoury.dgpu_disable_dev_id);
>>  ASUS_ATTR_GROUP_BOOL(dgpu_disable, "dgpu_disable", "Disable the dGPU");
>>  
>>  /* Values map for eGPU activation requests. */
>> @@ -790,7 +792,6 @@ ASUS_ATTR_GROUP_INT_VALUE_ONLY_RO(nv_base_tgp, ATTR_NV_BASE_TGP, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_
>>  static const struct asus_attr_group armoury_attr_groups[] = {
>>  	{ &egpu_connected_attr_group, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_EGPU_CONNECTED },
>>  	{ &egpu_enable_attr_group, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_EGPU },
>> -	{ &dgpu_disable_attr_group, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_DGPU },
>>  	{ &apu_mem_attr_group, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_APU_MEM },
>>  
>>  	{ &ppt_pl1_spl_attr_group, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_PPT_PL1_SPL },
>> @@ -934,6 +935,21 @@ static int asus_fw_attr_add(void)
>>  		}
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	asus_armoury.dgpu_disable_dev_id = 0;
>> +	if (armoury_has_devstate(ASUS_WMI_DEVID_DGPU))
>> +		asus_armoury.dgpu_disable_dev_id = ASUS_WMI_DEVID_DGPU;
>> +	else if (armoury_has_devstate(ASUS_WMI_DEVID_GPU_MODE))
>> +		asus_armoury.dgpu_disable_dev_id = ASUS_WMI_DEVID_GPU_MODE;
>> +
>> +	if (asus_armoury.dgpu_disable_dev_id) {
> Now I started to wonder why are we doing it like this and not using 
> .is_visible?
>
> This question applies to the similar, existing cases as well.
>
> Denis?
>
>
I don't understand the question. There are a bunch of .is_visible in the kernel and
I'm not sure if I am looking the right one and therefore if I understood the question correctly.

It is written as this to memorize what the correct id is and therefore what
to do.... but I doubt this answers you.