On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 02:39:41PM +0000, Deucher, Alexander wrote:
> [Public]
Of course it is!
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 7:38 AM
> > To: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@xxxxxxxxx>; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@xxxxxxx>; Shuah Khan
> > <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "drm/amdgpu: move nbio
> > sdma_doorbell_range() into sdma code for vega"
This is horrid, please fix up your email system.
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 02:29:22AM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 20 October 2022 17:38:56 CEST Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > > > This reverts commit 9f55f36f749a7608eeef57d7d72991a9bd557341.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch was backported incorrectly when Sasha backported it and
> > > > > the patch that caused the regression that this patch set fixed was
> > > > > reverted in commit 412b844143e3 ("Revert "PCI/portdrv: Don't
> > > > > disable AER reporting in get_port_device_capability()""). This
> > > > > isn't necessary and causes a regression so drop it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bug:
> > > > >
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > > > > gitlab.freedesktop.org%2Fdrm%2Famd%2F-
> > %2Fissues%2F2216&data=05
> > > > >
> > %7C01%7Calexander.deucher%40amd.com%7C5f932b93d7154b20994a08dab
> > 5bf
> > > > >
> > 354e%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C6380221300859
> > 453
> > > > >
> > 54%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM
> > zIiLCJ
> > > > >
> > BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D9Gkpt0
> > zCN5q
> > > > > BWoSngMY%2FiJyHWiaAC34eWr2UfYRIjE%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.10
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > I build a kernel with these 2 patches reverted and can confirm that
> > > > that fixes the issue on my machine with a Radeon RX Vega 64 GPU.
> > > > # lspci -nn | grep VGA
> > > > 0b:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Advanced Micro Devices,
> > > > Inc. [AMD/ ATI] Vega 10 XL/XT [Radeon RX Vega 56/64] [1002:687f]
> > > > (rev c1)
> > > >
> > > > So feel free to add
> > > >
> > > > Tested-By: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Note additionally (probably only relevant for Greg while reviewing),
> > > that the first of the commits which need to be reverted is already
> > > queued as revert in queue-5.10.
> >
> > Argh, that caused me to drop both of these from the review queue.
> >
> > Can someone verify that this really still is needed on the latest 5.10-rc that
> > was just sent out? And if so, please send me whatever is really needed?
> >
> > this got way too confusing...
>
> These two patches need to be reverted from 5.10:
> 9f55f36f749a7608eeef57d7d72991a9bd557341
> 7b0db849ea030a70b8fb9c9afec67c81f955482e
>
> I did not see either of the reverts in linux-5.10.y in the stable tree when I generated these 2 revert patches. Where should I be looking to see proposed stable patches other than being possibly being cc'ed on a patch? Shuah had proposed a patch to revert 9f55f36f749a7608eeef57d7d72991a9bd557341, but I didn't see it in linux-5.10.y and I added some additional details to the commit message to provide more background on why it was being reverted so I wasn't sure if it had been applied or not.
/me hands you some '\n' characters....
Look in the stable-queue git tree for what is queued up next.
Now you can see all the emails for the 5.10-rc release on the list as
well in the linux-stable-rc git tree if you want to look there instead.
Can you check and make sure it's all correct now?
thanks,
greg k-h
