Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 May 2022 18:24:34 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ata: ahci: Skip 200 ms debounce delay for AMD 300 Series Chipset SATA Controller | From | Paul Menzel <> |
| |
[Now really. Sorry for the spam.]
Am 31.05.22 um 18:21 schrieb Paul Menzel: > [Cc: -Nehal-bakulchandra (undeliverable)] > > Am 31.05.22 um 18:18 schrieb 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
| |