27.04.2020 18:12, Thierry Reding пишет: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 05:21:30PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 27.04.2020 14:00, Thierry Reding пишет: >>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:52:10PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>> 27.04.2020 10:48, Thierry Reding пишет: >>>> ... >>>>>> Maybe but all these other problems appear to have existed for sometime >>>>>> now. We need to fix all, but for the moment we need to figure out what's >>>>>> best for v5.7. >>>>> >>>>> To me it doesn't sound like we have a good handle on what exactly is >>>>> going on here and we're mostly just poking around. >>>>> >>>>> And even if things weren't working quite properly before, it sounds to >>>>> me like this patch actually made things worse. >>>> >>>> There is a plenty of time to work on the proper fix now. To me it sounds >>>> like you're giving up on fixing the root of the problem, sorry. >>> >>> We're at -rc3 now and I haven't seen any promising progress in the last >>> week. All the while suspend/resume is now broken on at least one board >>> and that may end up hiding any other issues that could creep in in the >>> meantime. >>> >>> Furthermore we seem to have a preexisting issue that may very well >>> interfere with this patch, so I think the cautious thing is to revert >>> for now and then fix the original issue first. We can always come back >>> to this once everything is back to normal. >>> >>> Also, people are now looking at backporting this to v5.6. Unless we >>> revert this from v5.7 it may get picked up for backports to other >>> kernels and then I have to notify stable kernel maintainers that they >>> shouldn't and they have to back things out again. That's going to cause >>> a lot of wasted time for a lot of people. >>> >>> So, sorry, I disagree. I don't think we have "plenty of time". >> >> There is about a month now before the 5.7 release. It's a bit too early >> to start the panic, IMO :) > > There's no panic. A patch got merged and it broken something, so we > revert it and try again. It's very much standard procedure. > >> Jon already proposed a reasonable simple solution: to keep PCIe >> regulators always-ON. In a longer run we may want to have I2C atomic >> transfers supported for a late suspend phase. > > That's not really a solution, though, is it? It's just papering over > an issue that this patch introduced or uncovered. I'm much more in > favour of fixing problems at the root rather than keep papering over > until we loose track of what the actual problems are. It's not "papering over an issue". The bug can't be fixed properly without introducing I2C atomic transfers support for a late suspend phase, I don't see any other solutions for now. Stable kernels do not support atomic transfers at all, that proper solution won't be backportable.
