diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | wiki/Chat_log/20210218-io-chatlog | 225 |
1 files changed, 225 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/wiki/Chat_log/20210218-io-chatlog b/wiki/Chat_log/20210218-io-chatlog new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8ba74c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/wiki/Chat_log/20210218-io-chatlog @@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ +<wsa> so, welcome to the io meeting and here are the status updates: [16:54] +<jmondi> 'morning everyone +*** damm (~damm@l193216.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp) has joined channel #periperi +<wsa> A - what have I done since last time +<wsa> ------------------------------------ +<wsa> Geert +<wsa> : fixed PHY Runtime PM in SH-ETH and related improvements for SMSC911X, + added Falcon I2C EEPROM support +<wsa> Niklas +<wsa> : resent Gen3 timer patches, discussed V3U timer support +<wsa> Shimoda-san +<wsa> : added mmc aliases to Gen2/3 board files, investigated RPC-IF driver + issues with BSP team, got some information about Gen3e +<wsa> Ulrich +<wsa> : sent atomic xfer support for i2c-rcar +<wsa> Wolfram +<wsa> : upstreamed V3U support for WDT, I2C, AVB0, SDHI, (H)SCIF for 5.12, + investigated issues of AVB1-5 and RPC-IF on the V3U Falcon board, sent + I2C core preparations for extended RECV_LEN sizes, improved I2C testunit + with RECV_LEN testcase, moved already rejected patches from new BSP list + to the non-target list, enabled WAIT_WHILE_BUSY and removed + NON_REMOVABLE workaround for SDHI +<wsa> B - what I want to do until next time +<wsa> ------------------------------------- +<wsa> Geert +<wsa> : wants to revise Falcon I2C EEPROM support +<wsa> Niklas +<wsa> : wants to figure out number of TSC nodes on V3U +<wsa> Shimoda-san +<wsa> : wants to continue to investigate SDHI driver's issues, collect more + information about R-Car Gen3e, continue to develop R-Car S4 Ethernet + driver [16:55] +<wsa> Wolfram +<wsa> : wants to pick up "logic analyzer via isolated CPU" work again, + upstream CMT and TMU support for V3U, continue with extended RECV_LEN + and its R-Car support, keep working on SDHI issues +<wsa> C - problems I currently have +<wsa> ----------------------------- +<wsa> None reported. +<wsa> uli__: is this audio task a big one? Because I wanted to talk about a + (hopefully) small RAVB task and am curious when I can get back to you? +<uli__> that's not a problem +<wsa> marex: what can we do to push the PCI L1 issue? Resend the patch? + [16:56] +<marex> wsa: probably disable L1 altogether +<wsa> uli__: okay. so, i'll send you a mail with the details later. [16:57] +<marex> wsa: and if someone needs it in the BSP, then there can be a + downstream BSP patch which enables it for special cases where it might + work OK +<wsa> unconditionally? or just for some devices? +<uli__> ok, thx +<marex> wsa: but it seems for the generic case, which maintainers seems to + care about, L1 is unusable +<wsa> caring for the generic case sounds OK to me [16:58] +<wsa> so we should disable it? +<marex> the question is whether it is OK to just disable L1 altogether [16:59] +<marex> right +<marex> I guess we are out of options anyway +<geertu> FTR, I got the interupt crash during PCIe resume on M3-W again + earlier this week +<wsa> shimoday: do you want to discuss this with the BSP team? [17:00] +<marex> geertu: with what PCIe card and on which CPU core ? +<geertu> As it's not easy to reproduce, it might be hard to see if disabling + L1 helps +<wsa> shimoday: if we should disable L1 on PCIe upstream because that's what + the maintainers prefer +<wsa> geertu: neg: thanks for testing the SDHI workaround removal patch. Much + appreciated! [17:01] +<geertu> marex: e1000e: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver +<neg> I'm happy to see that quirk gone ;-) +<wsa> neg: hopefully it will stay "gone" this time [17:02] +<marex> wsa: BSP team can keep the patch which handles the link resume [17:03] +<geertu> marex: No idea which CPU core +<marex> wsa: although maybe it is just safer to turn off the L1 states in the + BSP too +<marex> geertu: do you have the backtrace ? +<wsa> marex: exactly, maybe they want to support the generic case, too ;) + [17:04] +<wsa> okay, are there questions / comments from your side? +<shimoday> wsa: i think we don't need to discus with BSP team because it's the + maintainers prefer so BSP team will have no objection, i guess +<wsa> i have one periject topic but I want this last +<wsa> marex: can you prepare a patch then? [17:05] +<marex> shimoday: do you happen to have customers that might need L1 link + states ? +<marex> for whatever reason +<moriperi> geertu: sorry for my late response. Haha :) it is interesting way + to increase for me :) [17:06] +<geertu> marex: It's the same/similar one as + https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/CAMuHMdX_ksY_AnaGyL0Z4HjUv72ndRM7XsRHkSKaBP7J-xmN1A@mail.gmail.com/ + [17:08] +<marex> geertu: makes me wonder whether the spinlock in atf doesn't quite + lock, uh [17:09] +<geertu> marex: oh right, could be a bug in atf ;-) +<marex> the entire gen3 L1->L0 code should be serialized +<geertu> or better :-( +<marex> hopefully not in such fundamental primitives [17:10] +<shimoday> marex: hmm, it's a difficut thing. I don't have any idea how way is + better for now... +<wsa> I guess, at least for upstream, we should disable L1 [17:12] +<wsa> BSP team then can decide if they want to pick it +<wsa> so, for my periject topic [17:13] +<shimoday> wsa: i agree +<marex> wsa: I guess we have no other options anyway +<wsa> let's wake some MM members first: kbingham[m] jmondi pinchartl neg :) +<marex> and if BSP team needs the patch, it was posted [17:14] +<kbingham> wsa, Hey I felt that +<kbingham> :-) +<wsa> some ppl said they want to add patches to the new "non-target" list +<wsa> kbingham: good \o/ +<neg> zZzZ ;-) [17:15] +<wsa> I propose that we add the reason in brackets '()' for now +<wsa> Otherwise we start looking at the same patches again for patches which + won't make it upstream but are still kept in the BSP [17:16] +<wsa> I couldn't think of a better way to maintain this information for now +<wsa> (please shoot if you can think of one) +<shimoday> g [17:17] +<shimoday> sorry, my dauther typed this 'g' ;) +<geertu> wsa: You mean like +<geertu> + - d8c1fb49de142298c345bd112fbad2b26cac9013 # arm64: dts: r8a77990: + Change IPMMU-MM and IPMMU-caches order in DT (These are provisional + patches. Please refer to https + //patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10157459/) +<wsa> It needed some yes +<wsa> argh +<wsa> yes +<geertu> shimoday: Good. next important keys are "e", "e", "r", and "t" ;-) + [17:18] +<wsa> It needed some AWK scripts to port this information from good old + periupport, but it moved quite some patches away +<pinchartl> wsa: I don't wake up before 11:00 :-) +<shimoday> geertu: :) [17:19] +<wsa> pinchartl: This is why we discuss all important things before 11:00 ;) +<geertu> wsa: What exactly do you mean by "add patches ... to the list"? +<kbingham> is this for understanding why patches are rejected too? [17:20] +<wsa> geertu: basically, if you add an entry to the non-target list +<kbingham> in MM, we have rejected patches in the past, but of course BSP team + still 'need/want' them, so they are there again in this latest bsp + ticket. +<geertu> wsa: patched moved from upport request, or also for random other + patches we discover in the bsp? +<wsa> kbingham: Right. And sometimes for years, so it may be forgotten if this + could be upported or was already rejected. [17:22] +<wsa> I had this with some RAVB patches which Simon back then already tried + upstreaming but they were rejected upstream +<shimoday> kbingham: sorry for lack information. the current bsp-41x list is + from just the bsp, not thier want/need because +<wsa> But I had to find this out digging through mail threads +<shimoday> they are busy to make such "need/want" list for bsp-410... +<shimoday> so, we need re-reject such patches again [17:23] +<geertu> shimoday: Do they also plan to take our comments into account? E.g. + [17:24] +<geertu> spi: sh-msiof: Add MSIOF module clock changing processing for R-Car + Gen3 (Proposing 'N' Should use "assigned-clocks" and + "assigned-clock-rates" in board DTS file that actually uses MSIOF) +<wsa> and to avoid digging through old mails, I'd like to collect the + information somehow +<wsa> geertu: that might be another benefit [17:25] +<geertu> wsa: OK, I'll update the recent changes I made to + bsp-41x-non-target.yaml +<wsa> It may not be the best format; I guess updating from one BSP list to the + next one is probably still some strange scripting [17:26] +<shimoday> geertu: what is "into account" mean? +* jmondi catches up with the discussion +<wsa> but as people want to start filling the "non-target" list, it might be a + start at least +<geertu> shimoday: replace the BSP way by the suggestion in the comment +<jmondi> wsa: geertu: was the sweep you made to the ticket a manual process or + do you have scripts that identify patches that were rejected and + re-purposed in the new ticket ? [17:27] +<geertu> jmondi: the one marked (patch-id) and (summary) where done by some + half-baked scripting [17:28] +<wsa> jmondi: for porting the comments from periupport, I wrote scripts to + identify patches based on $subject +<geertu> run "git path-id --stable" and "git log --oneline" on all commits + upstream and in the BSP, and look for matches +<geertu> s/path-id/patch-id/ [17:29] +<geertu> s/where/were/ +<jmondi> wsa: geert: I see, everyone has its own method it seems [17:30] +<geertu> jmondi: It was similar to what I do for my regular "Auto-update + sweep", which considers patch-id and lore link +<wsa> jmondi: well, the port from periupport is done now [17:31] +<wsa> now it is about porting from one bsp-list to the next +<jmondi> yeah sure, I was thinking about moving to one BSP list to anther, and + mostly for future tickets +<jmondi> anyway, thanks, it's not a huge number of patches, and some scripting + + some manual verification should do [17:32] +<wsa> hopefully so +<wsa> when backporting upstream patches, BSP team adds lines like + "cherry-picked from: ..." to the description [17:33] +<wsa> that would be nice for cherry-picking old BSP patches, too, I'd think + [17:34] +<wsa> if the BSP team is up for it +<wsa> that said, matching on $subject worked quite well +<wsa> OK, I think we can close this now? [17:35] +<wsa> and move to core? +<jmondi> wsa: so we can match on the 'cherry-picked from' ? +<geertu> wsa: Indeed, Shimoda-san did that in 4d75bd75ef222375 ("linux: + bsp-41x: Move cherry picked commits to non target") +<jmondi> between tickets I mean +<wsa> jmondi: yes +<geertu> jmondi: If the cherry-picked points to a commit in upstream or + stable. +<geertu> I.e. if "git tag --contains <sha1> v5.11" prints v5.11 [17:36] +<geertu> (stable needs more checks, as there are more trees) [17:37] +<jmondi> oh I thought wolfram was suggesting, in case the patch has not been + upstreamed, to point to the commit id in the previous bsp ticket +<jmondi> so we can easy get to the status assigned to the patch in the + previous ticket [17:38] +<geertu> Oops, I missed that detail +<jmondi> anyway, please move to core, I don't want to continue interrupting + the meeting +<geertu> So yes, then we have to look at what cherry-picked points to for + sure! +<wsa> geertu: ready? [17:39] +<geertu> wsa: it can point to a commit in upstream, stable, or another BSP + version. +<wsa> geertu: right [17:40] +<geertu> I believe a new BSP is created by rebasing, not by cherry-picking? + (yes, technically, it's the same) +<wsa> I wouldn't want to solely rely on "cherry-picked from" anyhow [17:42] +<geertu> agreed +<wsa> It is nice if the BSP teams helps +<wsa> but we should be able to act independently from that IMO [17:43] +<wsa> so, core now? [17:44] |