[Public]
-----Original Message----- From: Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:56 AM To: Deucher, Alexander Alexander.Deucher@amd.com Cc: Salvatore Bonaccorso carnil@debian.org; Diederik de Haas didi.debian@cknow.org; stable@vger.kernel.org; Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org; Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "drm/amdgpu: move nbio sdma_doorbell_range() into sdma code for vega"
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 02:39:41PM +0000, Deucher, Alexander wrote:
[Public]
Of course it is!
-----Original Message----- From: Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 7:38 AM To: Salvatore Bonaccorso carnil@debian.org Cc: Diederik de Haas didi.debian@cknow.org; stable@vger.kernel.org; Deucher, Alexander Alexander.Deucher@amd.com; Shuah Khan
Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org 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@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher alexander.deucher@amd.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 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@cknow.org
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?
Please also revert 7b0db849ea030a70b8fb9c9afec67c81f955482e or apply patch 2/2 of this series of if you'd prefer, I can resend just patch 2/2 by itself.
Thanks,
Alex
thanks,
greg k-h