On 12/4/2023 8:36 PM, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> On 4.12.2023 16.49, Basavaraj Natikar wrote:
>>
>> On 12/4/2023 7:52 PM, Mathias Nyman wrote:
>>> On 4.12.2023 12.49, Basavaraj Natikar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/4/2023 3:38 PM, Mathias Nyman wrote:
>>>>> This reverts commit a5d6264b638efeca35eff72177fd28d149e0764b.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch was an attempt to solve issues seen when enabling
>>>>> runtime PM
>>>>> as default for all AMD 1.1 xHC hosts. see commit 4baf12181509
>>>>> ("xhci: Loosen RPM as default policy to cover for AMD xHC 1.1")
>>>>
>>>> AFAK, only 4baf12181509 commit has regression on AMD xHc 1.1 below is
>>>> not regression
>>>> patch and its unrelated to AMD xHC 1.1.
>>>>
>>>> Only [PATCH 2/2] Revert "xhci: Loosen RPM as default policy to cover
>>>> for AMD xHC 1.1"
>>>> alone in this series solves regression issues.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Patch a5d6264b638e ("xhci: Enable RPM on controllers that support
>>> low-power states")
>>> was originally not supposed to go to stable. It was added later as it
>>> solved some
>>> cases triggered by 4baf12181509 ("xhci: Loosen RPM as default policy
>>> to cover for AMD xHC 1.1")
>>> see:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/5993222.lOV4Wx5bFT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>
>>> Turns out it wasn't enough.
>>>
>>> If we now revert 4baf12181509 "xhci: Loosen RPM as default policy to
>>> cover for AMD xHC 1.1"
>>> I still think it makes sense to also revert a5d6264b638e.
>>> Especially from the stable kernels.
>>
>> Yes , a5d6264b638e still solves other issues if underlying hardware
>> doesn't support RPM
>> if we revert a5d6264b638e on stable releases then new issues (not
>> related to regression)
>> other than AMD xHC 1.1 controllers including xHC 1.2 will still exist
>> on stable releases.
>
> Ok, got it, so a5d6264b638e also solves other issues than those
> exposed by 4baf12181509.
> And that one (a5d6264b638) should originally have been marked for stable.
>
> So only revert 4baf12181509, PATCH 2/2 in this series
Thank you, that is correct.
Thanks,
--
Basavaraj
>
> Thanks
> Mathias
