On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 05:28:29PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 07:06:45PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 04:21:28PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 06:08:05PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 03:30:43PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > > > > > The flags are only used to mark a quirk to be called once and nothing > > > > > else. Also, that logic may not be appropriate if the quirk wants to > > > > > do additional filtering and set quirk as applied by itself. > > > > > > > > > > So replace the uses of QFLAG_APPLY_ONCE with static local variables in > > > > > the few quirks that use this logic and remove all the flags logic. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Only occurred to me now, but another, less intrusive approach would be > > > > to just remove QFLAG_APPLY_ONCE from intel_graphics_quirks() and do > > > > its bookkeeping internally, e.g., > > > > > > that is actually what I suggested after your comment in v2: this would > > > be the first patch with "minimal fix". But then to keep it consistent > > > with the other calls to follow up with additional patches on top > > > converting them as well. Maybe what I wrote wasn't clear in the > > > direction? Copying it here: > > > > > > 1) add the static local only to intel graphics quirk and remove the > > > flag from this item > > > 2 and 3) add the static local to other functions and remove the flag > > > from those items > > > 4) remove the flag from the table, the defines and its usage. > > > 5) fix the coding style (to be clear, it's already wrong, not > > > something wrong introduced here... maybe could be squashed in (4)?) > > > > Oh, sorry, I guess I just skimmed over that without really > > comprehending it. > > > > Although the patch below is basically just 1 from above and doesn't > > require any changes to the other functions or the flags themselves > > (2-4 above). > > Yes, but I would do the rest of the conversion anyway. It would be odd > to be inconsistent with just a few functions. So in the end I think we > would achieve the same goal. > > I would really prefer this approach, having the bug fix first, if I was > concerned about having to backport this to linux-stable beyond 5.10.y > (we have a trivial conflict on 5.10). > > However given this situation is new (Intel GPU + Intel Discrete GPU) > rare (it also needs a PCI topology in a certain way to reproduce it), > I'm not too concerned. Not even sure if it's worth submitting to > linux-stable. +1 on the minimal fix approach first and send that to stable 5.10+. We will hit this case for sure. also +1 on the discussed ideas as a follow up. > > I'll wait others to chime in on one way vs the other. > > thanks > Lucas De Marchi
