[PATCH 1/2] Revert "drm/amdgpu: move nbio sdma_doorbell_range() into sdma code for vega"
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://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 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 --- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/sdma_v4_0.c | 5 ----- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/soc15.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/sdma_v4_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/sdma_v4_0.c index a1a8e026b9fa..1f2e2460e121 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/sdma_v4_0.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/sdma_v4_0.c @@ -1475,11 +1475,6 @@ static int sdma_v4_0_start(struct amdgpu_device *adev) WREG32_SDMA(i, mmSDMA0_CNTL, temp);
if (!amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev)) { - ring = &adev->sdma.instance[i].ring; - adev->nbio.funcs->sdma_doorbell_range(adev, i, - ring->use_doorbell, ring->doorbell_index, - adev->doorbell_index.sdma_doorbell_range); - /* unhalt engine */ temp = RREG32_SDMA(i, mmSDMA0_F32_CNTL); temp = REG_SET_FIELD(temp, SDMA0_F32_CNTL, HALT, 0); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/soc15.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/soc15.c index abd649285a22..7212b9900e0a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/soc15.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/soc15.c @@ -1332,6 +1332,25 @@ static int soc15_common_sw_fini(void *handle) return 0; }
+static void soc15_doorbell_range_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev) +{ + int i; + struct amdgpu_ring *ring; + + /* sdma/ih doorbell range are programed by hypervisor */ + if (!amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev)) { + for (i = 0; i < adev->sdma.num_instances; i++) { + ring = &adev->sdma.instance[i].ring; + adev->nbio.funcs->sdma_doorbell_range(adev, i, + ring->use_doorbell, ring->doorbell_index, + adev->doorbell_index.sdma_doorbell_range); + } + + adev->nbio.funcs->ih_doorbell_range(adev, adev->irq.ih.use_doorbell, + adev->irq.ih.doorbell_index); + } +} + static int soc15_common_hw_init(void *handle) { struct amdgpu_device *adev = (struct amdgpu_device *)handle; @@ -1351,6 +1370,12 @@ static int soc15_common_hw_init(void *handle)
/* enable the doorbell aperture */ soc15_enable_doorbell_aperture(adev, true); + /* HW doorbell routing policy: doorbell writing not + * in SDMA/IH/MM/ACV range will be routed to CP. So + * we need to init SDMA/IH/MM/ACV doorbell range prior + * to CP ip block init and ring test. + */ + soc15_doorbell_range_init(adev);
return 0; }
This reverts commit 7b0db849ea030a70b8fb9c9afec67c81f955482e.
The patches that this patch depends on were not backported properly 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://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 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 --- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 14 +++----------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c index 881045e600af..bde0496d2f15 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c @@ -2179,16 +2179,8 @@ static int amdgpu_device_ip_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev) } adev->ip_blocks[i].status.sw = true;
- if (adev->ip_blocks[i].version->type == AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_COMMON) { - /* need to do common hw init early so everything is set up for gmc */ - r = adev->ip_blocks[i].version->funcs->hw_init((void *)adev); - if (r) { - DRM_ERROR("hw_init %d failed %d\n", i, r); - goto init_failed; - } - adev->ip_blocks[i].status.hw = true; - } else if (adev->ip_blocks[i].version->type == AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_GMC) { - /* need to do gmc hw init early so we can allocate gpu mem */ + /* need to do gmc hw init early so we can allocate gpu mem */ + if (adev->ip_blocks[i].version->type == AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_GMC) { /* Try to reserve bad pages early */ if (amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev)) amdgpu_virt_exchange_data(adev); @@ -2770,8 +2762,8 @@ static int amdgpu_device_ip_reinit_early_sriov(struct amdgpu_device *adev) int i, r;
static enum amd_ip_block_type ip_order[] = { - AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_COMMON, AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_GMC, + AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_COMMON, AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_PSP, AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_IH, };
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:38:57AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
This reverts commit 7b0db849ea030a70b8fb9c9afec67c81f955482e.
The patches that this patch depends on were not backported properly 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://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 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
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 14 +++----------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Now queued up, thanks.
greg k-h
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://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 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
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://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 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.
Regards, Salvatore
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://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 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.
Yeah, this series does not apply to the current 5.10 queue at all.
And I am totally confused as to what to do here.
Can someone please just send me a set of patches, on top of the current 5.10 stable queue that works? Or just wait for after the next 5.10.y release next week and then send me a working set of patches if you don't like to mess with the queue format?
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 09:39:26AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
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://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 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.
Yeah, this series does not apply to the current 5.10 queue at all.
And I am totally confused as to what to do here.
Can someone please just send me a set of patches, on top of the current 5.10 stable queue that works? Or just wait for after the next 5.10.y release next week and then send me a working set of patches if you don't like to mess with the queue format?
The problem is "only" that the first of the commits is already present in the queue, as 1bd9462d17de ("Revert "drm/amdgpu: move nbio sdma_doorbell_range() into sdma code for vega"") but with different commit message (the one from Alex Deucher would have the advantage to have as well reference to the upstream bug at https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 .
The second commit applies then cleanly on top, so the following inlined here in the message.
Regards, Salvatore
From 6a0b925deb55c5a0b5a27cb4a05b73f4663451a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alex Deucher alexander.deucher@amd.com Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:38:57 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Revert "drm/amdgpu: make sure to init common IP before gmc"
This reverts commit 7b0db849ea030a70b8fb9c9afec67c81f955482e.
The patches that this patch depends on were not backported properly 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://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 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 --- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 14 +++----------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c index 881045e600af..bde0496d2f15 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c @@ -2179,16 +2179,8 @@ static int amdgpu_device_ip_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev) } adev->ip_blocks[i].status.sw = true;
- if (adev->ip_blocks[i].version->type == AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_COMMON) { - /* need to do common hw init early so everything is set up for gmc */ - r = adev->ip_blocks[i].version->funcs->hw_init((void *)adev); - if (r) { - DRM_ERROR("hw_init %d failed %d\n", i, r); - goto init_failed; - } - adev->ip_blocks[i].status.hw = true; - } else if (adev->ip_blocks[i].version->type == AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_GMC) { - /* need to do gmc hw init early so we can allocate gpu mem */ + /* need to do gmc hw init early so we can allocate gpu mem */ + if (adev->ip_blocks[i].version->type == AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_GMC) { /* Try to reserve bad pages early */ if (amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev)) amdgpu_virt_exchange_data(adev); @@ -2770,8 +2762,8 @@ static int amdgpu_device_ip_reinit_early_sriov(struct amdgpu_device *adev) int i, r;
static enum amd_ip_block_type ip_order[] = { - AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_COMMON, AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_GMC, + AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_COMMON, AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_PSP, AMD_IP_BLOCK_TYPE_IH, };
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://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2216 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...
greg k-h
[Public]
-----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 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 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.
Alex
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 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"
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?
thanks,
greg k-h
[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
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 05:31:53PM +0000, Deucher, Alexander wrote:
[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.
Now queued up.
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Alex Deucher -
Deucher, Alexander
-
Diederik de Haas -
Greg KH -
Salvatore Bonaccorso