From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2019E3264C7; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 15:43:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775490232; cv=none; b=AAGKMxqbz0FtxjEZDmjVYky+wqSnp5CR2cLbV5G6JfXbvPlfDsuY+7sv26Y/b48nw6wfpc12nZnJo4sdc/9I+hzZdK4/tp2NKgW7MSS3kozQixcbCFLUKwx9mUD70bDElqtwFdgMInKnAiCgNnmk5WW20U0cZgAhQaaxqltmn10= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775490232; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6K2d1uCa9Dh10D+k8fmuJhHRkFmPdHPqVcDSK949lmk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=S+V7cbCtoulQw3hhEAbBPDSqKNKOEu93LB9VB0oeK+P/GskWfQ35uyOUusdsuW6yEm4PBxn8QDmKAsbVgWUWIJYvmEcjEKXED8jgwwdGeH7FKWuAhkyic65YaQwl1UOEyAuqFrHTYxoXMw/I5WPDR/GMvoThzVAKN9xRgQEN0r8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=DTy47Pju; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="DTy47Pju" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC106C4CEF7; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 15:43:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1775490232; bh=6K2d1uCa9Dh10D+k8fmuJhHRkFmPdHPqVcDSK949lmk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DTy47PjuGGPT5ooIA0Tzf3BI2lD7nsOwis0hLQM2NlcCTRqw9h6zwoWbO64l7jN4D z8OCynGBfHBUvIj+kQUofS8rY2RYbU4kNsJD+Y7oxS3MeMOhyPqueQBobD5aCN+XqM ykChi+nvFcFYr8c/oxtRLT4hn1YJS/P79fzhJcMZk5dKrDah6LrIWDqNdL4/bl/woR c7pO+OGMnvSiYVHh2XtQxwMYtOemLlyfQSXrn9j9FDtsW7YkNQU9R5CM1XC8TEt223 0oBjGM813QusV8GfWHnT964dGHgVGtqFkjjX7s5wGfx5jFQttXyyVRBZaF7icjg523 9lMH6v+xHnFIQ== Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 11:43:50 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Harshit Mogalapalli Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, Niklas Cassel , Bjorn Helgaas , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Vegard Nossum Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.12 044/265] PCI: dw-rockchip: Dont wait for link since we can detect Link Up Message-ID: References: <20260312201018.128816016@linuxfoundation.org> <20260312201019.793655649@linuxfoundation.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 06:47:06PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote: >Hi Greg and Sasha, > > >On 13/03/26 01:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>6.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. >> >>------------------ >> >>From: Niklas Cassel >> >>[ Upstream commit ec9fd499b9c60a187ac8d6414c3c343c77d32e42 ] >> >>The Root Complex specific device tree binding for pcie-dw-rockchip has the >>'sys' interrupt marked as required. >> >>The driver requests the 'sys' IRQ unconditionally, and errors out if not >>provided. >> >>Thus, we can unconditionally set 'use_linkup_irq', so dw_pcie_host_init() >>doesn't wait for the link to come up. >> >>This will skip the wait for link up (since the bus will be enumerated once >>the link up IRQ is triggered), which reduces the bootup time. >> >>Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250113-rockchip-no-wait-v1-1-25417f37b92f@kernel.org >>Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel >>[bhelgaas: commit log] >>Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas >>Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Wilczyński >>Stable-dep-of: fc6298086bfa ("Revert "PCI: dw-rockchip: Don't wait for link since we can detect Link Up"") >>Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > >We need a process improvement here. > >We are pulling in a broken commit as a stable-dep, so we can revert it. > >Patch 45 is the revert, same logic for pair (46 and 47) > >[PATCH 6.12 046/265] PCI: qcom: Dont wait for link if we can detect Link Up >[PATCH 6.12 047/265] Revert "PCI: qcom: Dont wait for link if we can >detect Link Up" This works in our favor: it helps us answer the future question of "why wasn't this commit backported", and has absolutely no effect on the actual codebase. What's wrong with this? -- Thanks, Sasha