Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 May 2022 18:18:41 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ata: ahci: Skip 200 ms debounce delay for AMD 300 Series Chipset SATA Controller | From | Paul Menzel <> |
| |
Dear Damien,
Am 01.04.22 um 09:23 schrieb Damien Le Moal: > On 4/1/22 14:18, Paul Menzel wrote:
[…]
>> Am 01.04.22 um 01:04 schrieb Damien Le Moal: >>> On 3/31/22 23:42, Paul Menzel wrote: >> >>>> Am 23.03.22 um 09:36 schrieb Paul Menzel: >>>> >>>>> Am 23.03.22 um 09:24 schrieb Damien Le Moal: >>>>>> On 3/23/22 15:55, Paul Menzel wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Am 23.03.22 um 06:01 schrieb Damien Le Moal: >>>>>>>> On 3/22/22 06:51, Limonciello, Mario wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 16:25 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> […] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I seem to recall that we were talking about trying to drop the >>>>>>>>> debounce delay for everything, weren't we? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So perhaps it would be right to add a 4th patch in the series to do >>>>>>>>> just that. Then If this turns out to be problematic for >>>>>>>>> anything other than the controllers in the series that you >>>>>>>>> identified as not problematic then that 4th patch can >>>>>>>>> potentially be reverted alone? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not quite everything :) But you are right, let's try to switch the >>>>>>>> default to no delay. I will be posting patches today for that. >>>>>>>> With these patches, your patches are not necessary anymore as the AMD >>>>>>>> chipset falls under the default no-delay. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am all for improving the situation for all devices, but I am unable to >>>>>>> judge the regression potential of changing this, as it affects a lot of >>>>>>> devices. I guess it’d would go through the next tree, and hopefully the >>>>>>> company QA teams can give it a good spin. I hoped that my patches, as I >>>>>>> have tested them, and AMD will hopefully too, could go into the current >>>>>>> merge window. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, correct, the plan is to get the generic series queued as soon >>>>>> as rc1 so that it can spend plenty of time in linux-next for people >>>>>> to test. That will hopefully reduce the risk of breaking things in >>>>>> the field. Same for the default LPM change. >>>>> >>>>> But 5.18 or 5.19? If 5.18, sounds good to me, if 5.19, I’d be great if >>>>> my patches go into 5.18 cycle, as they have been tested, and it would >>>>> mean the whole change gets tested more widely already. >>>>> >>>>>> With the default removal of the debounce delay, your patches addressing >>>>>> only the AMD adapter are not needed anymore: this adapter will not have a >>>>>> debounce delay unless the ATA_LFLAG_DEBOUNCE_DELAY flag is set. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I understand. >>>> >>>> The merge window for Linux 5.18 is going to close in three days this >>>> Sunday. It’d be really great if my patches, tested on hardware, could go >>>> into that. >>>> >>>>>>>> It would be nice if you can test though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, I am going to that either way. >>>>>> >>>>>> Series posted with you on CC. Please test ! >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. I am going to test it in the coming days, and report back. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe more people should be put in Cc (Dell, Lenovo, IBM, x86 subsystem) >>>>> with a request to test this? >>>> Thank you for the patches, which are a big improvement. Let’s hope, you >>>> can re-roll them, so they get into Linux very soon for everyone’s benefit. >>> >>> I am waiting for 5.18-rc1 to rebase the patches and re-post them. Given >>> reviewed-by and tested-by tags, I will queue them for 5.19. >> >> As discussed in the other thread, it’s impossible to be 100 % certain, >> it won’t break anything. > > Yes, that is why I want to push the patches early in the cycle to be able > to revert if too many problems are reported. > >> >>> With that in mind, I am not planning to apply your previous patches >>> for 5.18, as they would conflict and would only end up being churn >>> since the delay removal by default will undo your changes. >> Obviously, I do not agree, as this would give the a little bit more >> testing already, if changing the default is a good idea. Also, if the >> conflict will be hard to resolve, I happily do it (the patches could >> even be reverted on top – git commits are cheap and easy to handle). > > The conflict is not hard to resolve. The point is that my patches changing > the default to no debounce delay completely remove the changes of your > patch to do the same for one or some adapters. So adding your patches now > and then my patches on top does not make much sense at all. > > If too many problems show up and I end up reverting/removing the patches, > then I will be happy to take your patches for the adapter you tested. Note > that *all* the machines I have tested so far are OK without a debounce > delay too. So we could add them too... And endup with a long list of > adapters that use the default ahci driver without debounce delay. The goal > of changing the default to no delay is to avoid that. So far, the adapters > I have identified that need the delay have their own declaration, so we > only need to add a flag there. Simpler change that listing up adapters > that are OK without the delay. > >> Anyway, I wrote my piece, but you are the maintainer, so it’s your call >> and I stop bothering you.
I just wanted to inquire about the status of your changes? I do not find them in your `for-5.19` branch. As they should be tested in linux-next before the merge window opens, if these are not ready yet, could you please apply my (tested) patches?
Kind regards,
Paul
| |