On 09/02/2023 07:44, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
On 08.02.2023 13:40, Neil Armstrong wrote:
Le 27/01/2023 à 14:02, Heiner Kallweit a écrit :
On 27.01.2023 08:59, Neil Armstrong wrote:
Hi,
On 26/01/2023 15:03, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
The usage of edge-triggered interrupts lead to lost interrupts under load,
see [0]. This was confirmed to be fixed by using level-triggered
interrupts.
The report was about SDIO. However, as the host controller is the same
for SD and MMC, apply the change to all mmc controller instances.
Thanks, I applied it in for-next so it runs on the CI tests.
[0] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg73991.html
Fixes: 1499218c80c9 ("arm64: dts: move common G12A & G12B modes to meson-g12-common.dtsi")
I think we should find a better Fixes or perhaps split in 3 so it targets the
right commit adding the nodes for each family.
This would be the cleanest option, right. Practically it shouldn't make
much of a difference. The chosen commit is from 2019, SDIO interrupt
support has been added just recently, and regarding MMC/SD it seems no
problems caused by edge-triggered interrupts are known.
I understand, but the Fixes tag must reflect what commit introduced the breakage,
so either keep a single patch but list all commits introducing the MMC, SD & SDIO nodes
on the 3 families, or split in 3 and specify the commit introducing the MMC, SD & SDIO
node on each family.
I'll prefer the later.
If the patch isn't applicable for older kernels, it doesn't matter as the stable team
will only apply the fix on a tree if it applies and builds.
If you target an older release you can submit them a patch reworked to apply
correctly if the original patch is already only Linus master tree.
Do you need a revert for the current "TEST"-annotated commit in linux-next
as part of the series?
No need, I'll remove it from for-next.
Neil
And don't forget adding the Tested-by tags.
Thanks,
Neil
If the test doesn't report any breakage, I'll probably ask you that.
Sure.
Neil
Heiner
Heiner
