On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 10:31 AM Timur Kristóf <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2026-10-27 at 11:21 +0100, Christian König wrote: > > 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. > > @Christian > Are you saying that you are worried about the backport because it may > regress Trinity? > > @Matheus > Would it be possible to only use the interrupt on SI and not on Trinity > so as to alleviate Christian's worry?
I've committed the patches already. I don't think the stable really matters that much. If there is a problem, we can revert. Alex
