Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Sep 2022 17:23:15 +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 01.09.22 um 00:13 schrieb Damien Le Moal: > On 8/30/22 18:05, Paul Menzel wrote:
[…]
>> 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? > > No progress. I need to put together a series with all the patches that > were sent already. Unless Mario can resend something ?
No reply from Mario.
>>> 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. > > Let's see were the lpm stuff goes first.
It shouldn’t be too much hassle to adapt the lpm series after the patch is applied.
Kind regards,
Paul
| |