path: root/wiki/Chat_log/20210218-io-chatlog

09:02 < wsa> so, welcome to the io meeting and here are the status updates:
09:02 < jmondi> 'morning everyone
09:02 -!- damm [~damm@l193216.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp] has joined #periperi
09:02 < wsa> A - what have I done since last time
09:02 < wsa> ------------------------------------
09:02 < wsa> Geert
09:02 < wsa> : fixed PHY Runtime PM in SH-ETH and related improvements for SMSC911X, added Falcon I2C EEPROM support
09:02 < wsa> Niklas
09:02 < wsa> : resent Gen3 timer patches, discussed V3U timer support
09:02 < wsa> Shimoda-san
09:02 < wsa> : added mmc aliases to Gen2/3 board files, investigated RPC-IF driver issues with BSP team, got some information about Gen3e
09:02 < wsa> Ulrich
09:02 < wsa> : sent atomic xfer support for i2c-rcar
09:02 < wsa> Wolfram
09:02 < 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
09:02 < wsa> B - what I want to do until next time
09:02 < wsa> -------------------------------------
09:02 < wsa> Geert
09:02 < wsa> : wants to revise Falcon I2C EEPROM support
09:02 < wsa> Niklas
09:02 < wsa> : wants to figure out number of TSC nodes on V3U
09:02 < wsa> Shimoda-san
09:02 < 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
09:02 < wsa> Wolfram
09:02 < 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
09:02 < wsa> C - problems I currently have
09:02 < wsa> -----------------------------
09:02 < wsa> None reported.
09:03 < 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?
09:03 < uli__> that's not a problem
09:04 < wsa> marex: what can we do to push the PCI L1 issue? Resend the patch?
09:05 < marex> wsa: probably disable L1 altogether
09:05 < wsa> uli__: okay. so, i'll send you a mail with the details later.
09:05 < 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
09:05 < wsa> unconditionally? or just for some devices?
09:05 < uli__> ok, thx
09:06 < marex> wsa: but it seems for the generic case, which maintainers seems to care about, L1 is unusable
09:07 < wsa> caring for the generic case sounds OK to me
09:07 < wsa> so we should disable it?
09:07 < marex> the question is whether it is OK to just disable L1 altogether
09:07 < marex> right
09:07 < marex> I guess we are out of options anyway
09:08 < geertu> FTR, I got the interupt crash during PCIe resume on M3-W again earlier this week
09:08 < wsa> shimoday: do you want to discuss this with the BSP team?
09:08 < marex> geertu: with what PCIe card and on which CPU core ?
09:08 < geertu> As it's not easy to reproduce, it might be hard to see if disabling L1 helps
09:09 < wsa> shimoday: if we should disable L1 on PCIe upstream because that's what the maintainers prefer
09:09 < wsa> geertu: neg: thanks for testing the SDHI workaround removal patch. Much appreciated!
09:10 < geertu> marex: e1000e: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver
09:10 < neg> I'm happy to see that quirk gone ;-)
09:10 < wsa> neg: hopefully it will stay "gone" this time
09:11 < marex> wsa: BSP team can keep the patch which handles the link resume
09:11 < geertu> marex: No idea which CPU core
09:11 < marex> wsa: although maybe it is just safer to turn off the L1 states in the BSP too
09:11 < marex> geertu: do you have the backtrace ?
09:12 < wsa> marex: exactly, maybe they want to support the generic case, too ;)
09:12 < wsa> okay, are there questions / comments from your side?
09:13 < 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
09:13 < wsa> i have one periject topic but I want this last
09:13 < wsa> marex: can you prepare a patch then?
09:13 < marex> shimoday: do you happen to have customers that might need L1 link states ?
09:13 < marex> for whatever reason
09:14 < moriperi> geertu: sorry for my late response. Haha :) it is interesting way to increase for me :)
09:16 < geertu> marex: It's the same/similar one as https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/CAMuHMdX_ksY_AnaGyL0Z4HjUv72ndRM7XsRHkSKaBP7J-xmN1A@mail.gmail.com/
09:17 < marex> geertu: makes me wonder whether the spinlock in atf doesn't quite lock, uh
09:17 < geertu> marex: oh right, could be a bug in atf ;-)
09:17 < marex> the entire gen3 L1->L0 code should be serialized
09:17 < geertu> or better :-(
09:18 < marex> hopefully not in such fundamental primitives
09:19 < shimoday> marex: hmm, it's a difficut thing. I don't have any idea how way is better for now...
09:20 < wsa> I guess, at least for upstream, we should disable L1
09:20 < wsa> BSP team then can decide if they want to pick it
09:21 < wsa> so, for my periject topic
09:21 < shimoday> wsa: i agree
09:22 < marex> wsa: I guess we have no other options anyway
09:22 < wsa> let's wake some MM members first: kbingham[m] jmondi pinchartl neg :)
09:22 < marex> and if BSP team needs the patch, it was posted
09:22 <@kbingham> wsa, Hey I felt that
09:22 <@kbingham> :-)
09:23 < wsa> some ppl said they want to add patches to the new "non-target" list
09:23 < wsa> kbingham: good \o/
09:23 < neg> zZzZ ;-)
09:23 < wsa> I propose that we add the reason in brackets '()' for now
09:24 < 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
09:24 < wsa> I couldn't think of a better way to maintain this information for now
09:25 < wsa> (please shoot if you can think of one)
09:25 < shimoday> g
09:25 < shimoday> sorry, my dauther typed this 'g' ;)
09:25 < geertu> wsa: You mean like
09:25 < 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/)
09:26 < wsa> It needed some yes
09:26 < wsa> argh
09:26 < wsa> yes
09:26 < geertu> shimoday: Good. next important keys are "e", "e", "r", and "t" ;-)
09:26 < wsa> It needed some AWK scripts to port this information from good old periupport, but it moved quite some patches away
09:26 < pinchartl> wsa: I don't wake up before 11:00 :-)
09:27 < shimoday> geertu: :)
09:27 < wsa> pinchartl: This is why we discuss all important things before 11:00 ;)
09:27 < geertu> wsa: What exactly do you mean by "add patches ... to the list"?
09:28 <@kbingham> is this for understanding why patches are rejected too?
09:28 < wsa> geertu: basically, if you add an entry to the non-target list
09:28 <@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.
09:28 < geertu> wsa: patched moved from upport request, or also for random other patches we discover in the bsp?
09:30 < wsa> kbingham: Right. And sometimes for years, so it may be forgotten if this could be upported or was already rejected.
09:30 < wsa> I had this with some RAVB patches which Simon back then already tried upstreaming but they were rejected upstream
09:30 < shimoday> kbingham: sorry for lack information. the current bsp-41x list is from just the bsp, not thier want/need because
09:31 < wsa> But I had to find this out digging through mail threads
09:31 < shimoday> they are busy to make such "need/want" list for bsp-410...
09:31 < shimoday> so, we need re-reject such patches again
09:32 < geertu> shimoday: Do they also plan to take our comments into account? E.g.
09:32 < 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)
09:32 < wsa> and to avoid digging through old mails, I'd like to collect the information somehow
09:33 < wsa> geertu: that might be another benefit
09:33 < geertu> wsa: OK, I'll update the recent changes I made to bsp-41x-non-target.yaml
09:34 < 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
09:34 < shimoday> geertu: what is "into account" mean?
09:34  * jmondi catches up with the discussion
09:34 < wsa> but as people want to start filling the "non-target" list, it might be a start at least
09:35 < geertu> shimoday: replace the BSP way by the suggestion in the comment
09:35 < 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 ?
09:36 < geertu> jmondi: the one marked (patch-id) and (summary) where done by some half-baked scripting
09:36 < wsa> jmondi: for porting the comments from periupport, I wrote scripts to identify patches based on $subject
09:37 < geertu> run "git path-id --stable" and "git log --oneline" on all commits upstream and in the BSP, and look for matches
09:37 < geertu> s/path-id/patch-id/
09:37 < geertu> s/where/were/
09:38 < jmondi> wsa: geert: I see, everyone has its own method it seems
09:38 < geertu> jmondi: It was similar to what I do for my regular "Auto-update sweep", which considers patch-id and lore link
09:39 < wsa> jmondi: well, the port from periupport is done now
09:39 < wsa> now it is about porting from one bsp-list to the next
09:39 < jmondi> yeah sure, I was thinking about moving to one BSP list to anther, and mostly for future tickets
09:40 < jmondi> anyway, thanks, it's not a huge number of patches, and some scripting + some manual verification should do
09:41 < wsa> hopefully so
09:41 < wsa> when backporting upstream patches, BSP team adds lines like "cherry-picked from: ..." to the description
09:42 < wsa> that would be nice for cherry-picking old BSP patches, too, I'd think
09:42 < wsa> if the BSP team is up for it
09:43 < wsa> that said, matching on $subject worked quite well
09:43 < wsa> OK, I think we can close this now?
09:43 < wsa> and move to core?
09:43 < jmondi> wsa: so we can match on the 'cherry-picked from' ?
09:43 < geertu> wsa: Indeed, Shimoda-san did that in 4d75bd75ef222375 ("linux: bsp-41x: Move cherry picked commits to non target")
09:43 < jmondi> between tickets I mean
09:43 < wsa> jmondi: yes
09:44 < geertu> jmondi: If the cherry-picked points to a commit in upstream or stable.
09:45 < geertu> I.e. if "git tag --contains <sha1> v5.11" prints v5.11
09:45 < geertu> (stable needs more checks, as there are more trees)
09:45 < 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
09:46 < jmondi> so we can easy get to the status assigned to the patch in the previous ticket
09:46 < geertu> Oops, I missed that detail
09:46 < jmondi> anyway, please move to core, I don't want to continue interrupting the meeting
09:46 < geertu> So yes, then we have to look at what cherry-picked points to for sure!
09:47 < wsa> geertu: ready?
09:47 < geertu> wsa: it can point to a commit in upstream, stable, or another BSP version.
09:48 < wsa> geertu: right
09:48 < geertu> I believe a new BSP is created by rebasing, not by cherry-picking? (yes, technically, it's the same)
09:50 < wsa> I wouldn't want to solely rely on "cherry-picked from" anyhow
09:50 < geertu> agreed
09:50 < wsa> It is nice if the BSP teams helps
09:51 < wsa> but we should be able to act independently from that IMO
09:52 < wsa> so, core now?
09:53 < geertu> yes! (I/O was going to be short ;-)