[Public]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 08:34
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rafael J . Wysocki
> <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-acpi <linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Thorsten Leemhuis (regressions address)
> <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: "Revert "ACPI: Pass the same capabilities to the _OSC regardless
> of the query flag"" is causing regressions
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 07:24:34AM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > On 6/23/22 05:06, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael, Mario,
> > >
> > > Commit 2ca8e6285250 ("Revert "ACPI: Pass the same capabilities to the
> > > _OSC regardless of the query flag"") is causing the issues fixed
> > > by the reverted commit to show up again, see:
> > >
> > >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugz
> illa.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D213023&data=05%7C01%7Cm
> ario.limonciello%40amd.com%7C0040716e869d4021ce3208da551d082d%7C3d
> d8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637915880426388833%7CU
> nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
> 6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KxmNvCfdm
> qvk5gXteXUDXHVTK45yEt%2BUYO4vaBbLXis%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugz
> illa.redhat.com%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D1963717&data=05%7C01%7C
> mario.limonciello%40amd.com%7C0040716e869d4021ce3208da551d082d%7C
> 3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637915880426388833%7
> CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJ
> BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pZRqAG3
> %2Bg0QevLOGZ8m9PNxcmkmh58soT2dSLg%2B6qWc%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > both of which have comments from the reporters that
> > > the error message is back again; and presumably also
> > > that /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc is missing
> > > again.
> > >
> > > Can you please take a look and see if we can come up with
> > > something which fixes both the re-surfaced issue, as well
> > > as the issue which the revert tries to address ?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Is it possible that c42fa24b44751c62c86e98430ef915c0609a2ab8 didn't
> backport
> > to the stable trees it popped back up again?
> >
>
> It is only in 5.18, no stable releases that I can see.
I think that should probably come back to stable along with everything this
revert went back to, but before doing that perhaps we can get someone
affected to confirm cherry-picking it helps.
