Re: [PATCH] accel/ivpu: Add handling of VPU_JSM_STATUS_MVNCI_CONTEXT_VIOLATION_HW

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:22:31PM +0200, Jacek Lawrynowicz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 4/22/2025 2:17 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:57:11AM +0200, Jacek Lawrynowicz wrote:
> >> From: Karol Wachowski <karol.wachowski@intel.com>
> >>
> >> commit dad945c27a42dfadddff1049cf5ae417209a8996 upstream.
> >>
> >> Trigger recovery of the NPU upon receiving HW context violation from
> >> the firmware. The context violation error is a fatal error that prevents
> >> any subsequent jobs from being executed. Without this fix it is
> >> necessary to reload the driver to restore the NPU operational state.
> >>
> >> This is simplified version of upstream commit as the full implementation
> >> would require all engine reset/resume logic to be backported.
> > 
> > We REALLY do not like taking patches that are not upstream.  Why not
> > backport all of the needed patches instead, how many would that be?
> > Taking one-off patches like this just makes it harder/impossible to
> > maintain the code over time as further fixes in this same area will NOT
> > apply properly at all.
> > 
> > Think about what you want to be touching 5 years from now, a one-off
> > change that doesn't match the rest of the kernel tree, or something that
> > is the same?
> 
> Sure, I'm totally on board with backporting all required patches.
> I thought it was not possible due to 100 line limit.
> 
> This would be the minimum set of patches:
> 
> Patch 1:
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_drv.c   | 32 +++-----------
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_drv.h   |  2 +
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.c   | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.h   |  1 +
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_mmu.c   |  3 +-
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_sysfs.c |  5 ++-
>  6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> 
> Patch 2:
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.c | 15 ++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> Patch 3:
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.c     |   2 +-
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_jsm_msg.c |   3 +-
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/vpu_boot_api.h |  45 +++--
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/vpu_jsm_api.h  | 303 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  4 files changed, 293 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
> 
> Patch 4:
>  drivers/accel/ivpu/ivpu_job.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> First patch needs some changes to apply correctly to 6.12 but the rest of them apply pretty cleanly.
> Is this acceptable?

Totally acceptable, that's trivial compared to many of the larger
backports we have taken over the years :)

thanks,

greg k-h