On 10/27/26 01:15, Matheus Tagliari wrote: > Hi Timur, Christian, > > Thanks for the input, Timur. > > To be clear, I'm not opposed to a backport. Fixing VCE1 for people stuck > on the radeon driver with an LTS kernel is exactly the case that made me > look into this in the first place. But my goal is only to help, and as I > said before, I do not want to push a change you don't want. > > Christian, if you'd rather keep this out of stable, I'll drop the > "Cc: stable" tag in v3 and leave the decision to you. If there is a > specific concern behind it (risk of regressions on other SI/Trinity > parts, say), I'd be glad to hear it. I can also try to address it, for > example with more testing, so that a backport can be reconsidered later.
I was part of the Trinity bringup back (I still have the engineering sample here :) and I filled a full swear jar bringing VCE up on that HW. Interrupts were definitely not working correctly back then. I have no idea when they were fixed but I want to avoid that people start streaming that this change made their system not boot any more and we are forced to revert a patch on stable kernels everywhere. > On that note, the SI part was tested on real hardware together with > patch 2, but the Trinity/Richland part only mirrors the existing CIK and > SI handling and has not been tested on hardware. If anyone has a > Trinity or Richland machine and can run a VCE encode with the series > applied, a Tested-by would help for both the review and any backport > discussion. I'm pretty sure my engineering sample doesn't work any more. That was an A0 stepping and those boards are only stitched together to work for a few weeks/month during initial HW bringup. Regards, Christian. > Either way, I'll respin v3 with whatever you both prefer. > > Thanks, > Matheus
