[PATCH 6.1.y] drm/amdgpu/vcn: Disable indirect SRAM on Vangogh broken BIOSes

[gregkh at linuxfoundation.org]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:36:00PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> On 20/04/2023 12:02, gregkh at linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Which "one" are you referring to here?
> >>>
> >>> confused,
> >>>
> >>> greg k-h
> >>
> >> This one, sent in this email thread.
> > 
> > I don't have "this email thread" anymore, remember, some of us get
> > thousand+ emails a day...
> 
> I don't really understand the issue to be honest, we are talking in the
> very email thread! The email was sent April/18, it's not old or anything.

That's 3000+ emails ago for me :)

> But in any case, for reference, this is the original email from the lore
> archives:
> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20230418221522.1287942-1-gpiccoli@igalia.com/
> 
> > 
> >> The title of the patch is "drm/amdgpu/vcn: Disable indirect SRAM on
> >> Vangogh broken BIOSes", target is 6.1.y and (one of the) upstream
> >> hash(es) is 542a56e8eb44 heh
> > 
> > But that commit says it fixes a problem in the 6.2 tree, why is this
> > relevant for 6.1.y?
> > 
> 
> That is explained in the email and the very reason for that, is the
> duplicate hashes we are discussing here.
> 
> The fix commit in question points the "Fixes:" tag to 82132ecc5432
> ("drm/amdgpu: enable Vangogh VCN indirect sram mode"), which appears to
> be in 6.2 tree, right?
> 
> But notice that 9a8cc8cabc1e ("drm/amdgpu: enable Vangogh VCN indirect
> sram mode") is the *same* offender and..is present on 6.1 !
> 
> In other words, when I first wrote this fix, I just checked the tree
> quickly and came up with "Fixes: 82132ecc5432", but to be thorough, I
> should have pointed the fixes tag to 9a8cc8cabc1e, to pick it on 6.1.y.
> 
> 
> tl;dr: the offender is present on 6.1.y, but this fix is not, hence I'm
> hereby requesting the merge. Some backport/context adjustment was
> necessary and it was properly tested in the Steam Deck.

Ok, we'll queue it up soon, thanks.

greg k-h