Hi, On 11/30/20 6:20 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > 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 > > It's hard to go wrong with reverting, so it's okay with me. > > Still, Hans, have you checked out the difference between the > scsi_add_host() and scsi_add_host_with_dma() calls? It's just a matter > of using dev vs. sysdev. In particular, have you checked to see what > those two devices are on your system? Its not just dev vs sysdev, its iface->dev vs bus->sysdev, and I assume that the latter is actually the XHCI controller. my vote goes to reverting to avoid the regression for 5.10, esp. since this is a clean revert of 3 patches with nothing depending / building on top of the reverted commits. Then for 5.11 we can retry to introduce similar changes. I would be happy to try a new patch-set for 5.11. > It seems likely that if one of those calls messes up some DMA settings, > the other one does too -- just maybe not settings that matter much. I'm not very familiar with all the DMA mapping / mask code, but AFAIK making changes to the DMA settings of a child will not influence the parent. Where as when passing bus->sysdev, then changes are made to a device which is shared with other devices on the bus, which is why we see a regression in an USB NIC driver being triggered by the UAS driver binding to a device (on the same bus). At least that is my interpretation of this. I bisected the regression and that pointed at the UAS DMA change and reverting it fixes things, confirming that I did not make any mistakes during the bisect. Regards, Hans