Re: AMD Strix Halo USB4: 20/40 Gbit/s negotiation with RJ45 and original host-reset patch regression

[Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>]

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 03:42:43PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 9/15/26 07:49, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 01:21:39PM +0200, Nils Arnold wrote:
> > > Hello Sanath, Mario, Mika and Basavaraj,
> > > 
> > > I would like to add test evidence from two Strix Halo hosts to this
> > > USB4 reset discussion. My reset test used a backport of the ORIGINAL
> > > f1de1fc5f632 commit, not the newer deferred-reset implementation.
> > > I have not tested the revisions discussed on September 15.
> > 
> > Okay the last message on the thread I asked if we should revert the commit
> > for v7.3-rcX and then try to get the "better" fix into v7.4. At least what
> > I understood it seems to solve the issue without the deadlock and killing
> > the whole host interface underneath everybody else.
> 
> FWIW to Nils I left a note on that thread and agree with Mika.
> 
> > 
> > Once we have that patch, you can test and see if that helps in your case
> > too. Now that we know AMD guys can CC you when they submit it.
> 
> One thing I'd like to note though; I would rather that we keep out of tree
> modules out of the conversation on the kernel mailing list when it comes to
> upstream behavior.
> 
> There are multiple ways to do xdomain tunnels in the kernel, and we should
> collectively fixate our time and energy on bugs related to those instead of
> PoC out of tree drivers.

Fully agree. But the same behaviour is with the in-tree Thunderbolt
networking and stream (and maybe DMA test) drivers so those should at least
be working with the AMD controller without wedging.