On 07.08.23 06:38, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 8/6/23 13:20, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 8/6/23 19:13, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>> On 8/6/23 10:14, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Commit a9c4a912b7dc ("ACPI: resource: Remove "Zen" specific match and
>>>> quirks") is causing keyboard problems for quite a log of AMD based
>>>> laptop users, leading to many bug reports.
>>>>
>>>> Revert this change for now, until we can come up with
>>>> a better fix for the PS/2 IRQ trigger-type/polarity problems
>>>> on some x86 laptops.
>>>
>>> Reverting it is going to help a bunch of machines but cause
>>> regressions for others. How do you prioritize which to fix when it
>>> comes to a regression?
It's up to Linus in the end, but to echo what Hans already said: I guess
Linus stance in this case would be along the lines of "let's get back to
a known state, even if we known that state has problems as well". And
that state is the mainline release 6.4 . Sure, Greg picked this up for
stable, but apart from that things boil down to "we tried something in
6.5-rc1, it did work well, so let's revert this until we work our a
proper solution that can be applied in a later cycle, no harm done".
> We haven't even given a try to fixing it; I think the revert is still
> hasty.
Some urgency is required, as (a) the patch made it into a stable release
(b) get closer to the end of the merge window and want to avoid last
minute changes.
> [...]
> Can we perhaps see if that works instead for some affected people?
> [...]
I'd say: it would be best to resolve this now with a revert, then we
might even reach the next stable-rc release (Greg unusually releases
those on Mon/Tue/Wed) and thus the next stable release. But let's please
definitely resolve this this week in mainline before -rc6.
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
