On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 02:36:38PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/30/20 2:30 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 02:23:48PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 11/30/20 1:58 PM, Tom Yan wrote:
> >>> It's merely a moving of comment moving for/and a no-behavioral-change
> >>> adaptation for the reversion.>
> >>
> >> IMHO the revert of the troublesome commit and the other/new changes really
> >> should be 2 separate commits. But I will let Alan and Greg have the final
> >> verdict on this.
> >
> > I would prefer to just revert the commits and not do anything
> > different/special here so late in the release cycle.
> >
> > So, if Alan agrees, I'll be glad to do them on my end, I just need the
> > commit ids for them.
>
> The troublesome commit are (in reverse, so revert, order):
>
> 5df7ef7d32fe ("uas: bump hw_max_sectors to 2048 blocks for SS or faster drives")
> 558033c2828f ("uas: fix sdev->host->dma_dev")
> 0154012f8018 ("usb-storage: fix sdev->host->dma_dev")
>
> Alan, the reason for reverting these is that using scsi_add_host_with_dma() as the
> last 2 patches do, with the dmadev argument of that call pointing to the device
> for the XHCI controller is causing changes to the DMA settings of the XHCI controller
> itself which is causing regressions in 5.10, see this email thread:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/fde7e11f-5dfc-8348-c134-a21cb1116285@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
Thanks, I'll wait for Alan to respond, but I think just reverting these
is the best solution at this point in time. You have tested those
reverts, solve this, right? If so, can I get a "Tested-by:"?
thanks,
greg k-h
