Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:05:53 +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,
Sorry for the late reply, and thank you for your great work.
Am 01.06.22 um 10:58 schrieb Damien Le Moal: > On 6/1/22 01:18, Paul Menzel wrote: >>>>> 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? > > I could, but 5.19 now has an updated libata.force kernel parameter that > allows one to disable the debounce delay for a particular port or for all > ports of an adapter. See libata.force=x.y:nodbdelay for a port y of > adapter x or libata.force=x:nodbdelay for all ports of adapter x.
This is commit 3af9ca4d341d (ata: libata-core: Improve link flags forced settings) [1]. Thank you, this is really useful, but easily overlooked. ;-)
> I still plan to revisit the arbitrary link debounce timers but I prefer to > have the power management cleanup applied first. The reason is that link > debounce depends on PHY readiness, which itself depends heavily on power > mode transitions. My plan is to get this done during this cycle for > release with 5.20 and then fix on top the arbitrary delays for 5.21.
Nice. Can you share the current status?
> Is the libata.force solution OK for you until we have a final more solid > fix that can benefit most modern adapters (and not just the ones you > identified)? If you do have a use case that needs a "nodbdelay" horkage > due to some constraint in the field, then I will apply your patches, but > they likely will be voided by coming changes. Let me know.
I think, applying the patch would be an improvement, as people wouldn’t need to update their Linux kernel command line, and I do not mind, if it gets reverted/dropped later.
Kind regards,
Paul
[1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=3af9ca4d341d2b8756fa9056ca0715915480e251
| |