On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 11:35:06AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 12:23:30PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 10:38:59AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > [+Greg] > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 09:57:25AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > > Hi Lorenzo, > > > > > > > > On 04/07/2019 17:09, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 08:34:28PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > > > > >> Currently Relaxed Ordering bit in the configuration space is enabled for > > > > >> all PCIe devices as the quirk uses PCI_ANY_ID for both Vendor-ID and > > > > >> Device-ID, but, as per the Technical Reference Manual of Tegra20 which is > > > > >> available at https://developer.nvidia.com/embedded/downloads#?search=tegra%202 > > > > >> in Sec 34.1, it is mentioned that Relexed Ordering bit needs to be enabled in > > > > >> its root ports to avoid deadlock in hardware. The same is applicable for > > > > >> Tegra30 as well though it is not explicitly mentioned in Tegra30 TRM document, > > > > >> but the same must not be extended to root ports of other Tegra SoCs or > > > > >> other hosts as the same issue doesn't exist there. > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > You forgot Thierry's ACK, I added it back but next time pay more > > > > > attention please. > > > > > > > > > > You should link the versions through eg git send-email > > > > > --in-reply-to=Message-Id so that it is easier to follow. > > > > > > > > > >> --- > > > > >> V3: > > > > >> * Modified commit message to make it more precise and explicit > > > > >> > > > > >> V2: > > > > >> * Modified commit message to include reference to Tegra20 TRM document. > > > > >> > > > > >> drivers/pci/controller/pci-tegra.c | 7 +++++-- > > > > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > I applied it to pci/tegra after rewriting the whole commit log and > > > > > adding a Fixes: tag that you or someone at Nvidia will follow up; > > > > > I will check. > > > > > > > > I had a chat with Vidya last night to understand the issue, so now I > > > > have a good understanding of the problem this has caused, which is very > > > > unfortunate indeed! > > > > > > > > Vidya mentioned that you would like us to get this backported to stable > > > > branches. Please correct me if I am wrong here. We can certainly do > > > > that, but I do have concerns about doing so, for non-Tegra devices > > > > inparticularly, given that this has been around for sometime now. Hence, > > > > I was wondering if we should leave this soak in the mainline for at > > > > least a kernel release cycle before doing so. I really don't want to > > > > break stable for anyone. What are your thoughts on this? > > > > > > I looped in Greg to pick his brain, since it is unclear how we should > > > apply the stable kernel rules on this specific patch. Basically, this > > > technically is not a bug, it is just bad code that forces a feature on > > > ALL kernels that compile the PCI Tegra Controller driver in the kernel. > > > I would really really want to have this patch applied to all stable > > > kernels but first as you said it is better to apply it to mainline and > > > check it does not cause any issues on any other arch/platform then > > > we can think about backporting it to stable kernels. > > > > You all have read the stable kernel rules, right: > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html > > > > Patches have to be upstream first. > > > > After it is merged in Linus's tree, post the patches with the git commit > > ids to stable@vger and we will be glad to review them there. > > Hi Greg, > > thanks, it was just to understand if the "Fixes:" tag would > automatically make it a stable kernel candidate when it hits Linus' > tree; No it will not. It _might_ get picked up by the "autobot" tool we have, but it might not as well. Never rely on that for a patch you know you want into the stable tree. Always put a specific cc: stable on it. > I will drop it from the patch and we will post the patches to > stable@vger when/if we want it considered for stable, we just do not > want it to be automatically picked up, that's it. Good idea. thanks, greg k-h
