[Public]
-----Original Message----- From: Thorsten Leemhuis regressions@leemhuis.info Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 07:19 To: Limonciello, Mario Mario.Limonciello@amd.com Cc: firew4lker firew4lker@gmail.com; Bartosz Golaszewski brgl@bgdev.pl; Andy Shevchenko andy.shevchenko@gmail.com; Shreeya Patel shreeya.patel@collabora.com; open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; open list linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Natikar, Basavaraj Basavaraj.Natikar@amd.com; Gong, Richard Richard.Gong@amd.com; stable@vger.kernel.org; Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; regressions@lists.linux.dev; Linus Walleij linus.walleij@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Request interrupts after IRQ is initialized
On 21.04.22 18:07, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 20.04.22 00:02, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 6:34 AM Mario Limonciello mario.limonciello@amd.com wrote:
Linus Walleij,
As this is backported to 5.15.y, 5.16.y, 5.17.y and those all had point releases a bunch of people are hitting it now. If you choose to adopt this patch instead of revert the broken one, you can add to the commit message too:
Link:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitla b.freedesktop.org%2Fdrm%2Famd%2F- %2Fissues%2F1976&data=05%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com% 7C1bfce4a8186b4b1a4ef208da245a4411%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e 183d%7C0%7C0%7C637862267399285803%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D% 7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cJvkTifRPkrl8kRaYffMmb0RGkoHb0krYMkj2 Ufsg5k%3D&reserved=0
I am on parental leave kind of, but Bartosz knows what to do, in this case, since it is ACPI-related, Andy knows best what to do, and I see he also replied.
Bartosz, Andy, what's the status here? It looks like the patch didn't make any progress in the past few days (or did I miss it?). I'd really like to see this patch or a revert of 5467801f1fcb ("gpio: Restrict usage of GPIO chip irq members before initialization") mainlined by rc4, so Greg (CCed) can fix it in the next round of stable updates, as it seems quite a few people are affected by the problem.
Mario, are you aware if this patch made any progress towards getting merged? If not, I wonder if we (you?) maybe should ask Linus to pick this up directly giving the circumstances to speed things up (or maybe a v2 that incorporates all the Reviewed-by/ACKs that accumulated).
I don't see it in Bartosz or Andy's trees. I'm fine to send up a v2 directly to Linus with this audience on CC.
Ciao, Thorsten
Reminder: this is one of those issue that we IMHO really should fix quickly, as explained by a text recently added to the documentation:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.k ernel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Flinux.git% 2Ftree%2FDocumentation%2Fprocess%2Fhandling- regressions.rst%23n131&data=05%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.c om%7C1bfce4a8186b4b1a4ef208da245a4411%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d 994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637862267399285803%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 %3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ttOhIvDHhi8fIjrpuNcgXKeZaM%2F%2 BaosUhn2mGEaC67M%3D&reserved=0
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.