On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:36:00PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote: > On 20/04/2023 12:02, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> [...] > >>> Which "one" are you referring to here? > >>> > >>> confused, > >>> > >>> greg k-h > >> > >> This one, sent in this email thread. > > > > I don't have "this email thread" anymore, remember, some of us get > > thousand+ emails a day... > > I don't really understand the issue to be honest, we are talking in the > very email thread! The email was sent April/18, it's not old or anything. That's 3000+ emails ago for me :) > But in any case, for reference, this is the original email from the lore > archives: > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20230418221522.1287942-1-gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > >> The title of the patch is "drm/amdgpu/vcn: Disable indirect SRAM on > >> Vangogh broken BIOSes", target is 6.1.y and (one of the) upstream > >> hash(es) is 542a56e8eb44 heh > > > > But that commit says it fixes a problem in the 6.2 tree, why is this > > relevant for 6.1.y? > > > > That is explained in the email and the very reason for that, is the > duplicate hashes we are discussing here. > > The fix commit in question points the "Fixes:" tag to 82132ecc5432 > ("drm/amdgpu: enable Vangogh VCN indirect sram mode"), which appears to > be in 6.2 tree, right? > > But notice that 9a8cc8cabc1e ("drm/amdgpu: enable Vangogh VCN indirect > sram mode") is the *same* offender and..is present on 6.1 ! > > In other words, when I first wrote this fix, I just checked the tree > quickly and came up with "Fixes: 82132ecc5432", but to be thorough, I > should have pointed the fixes tag to 9a8cc8cabc1e, to pick it on 6.1.y. > > > tl;dr: the offender is present on 6.1.y, but this fix is not, hence I'm > hereby requesting the merge. Some backport/context adjustment was > necessary and it was properly tested in the Steam Deck. Ok, we'll queue it up soon, thanks. greg k-h
