[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d4ea2dd2-2e89-d3a2-ee5c-f64bb1b8f576@leemhuis.info>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2022 13:11:58 +0200
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [bugzilla-daemon@...nel.org: [Bug 216109] New: Steam Deck fails
to boot when E820 entries clipped out of _CRS]
[TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked
regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates
paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.]
Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
On 10.06.22 00:43, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> New regression in v5.19-rc1.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from bugzilla-daemon@...nel.org -----
>
> Subject: [Bug 216109] New: Steam Deck fails to boot when E820 entries clipped
> out of _CRS
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216109
>
> Summary: Steam Deck fails to boot when E820 entries clipped out
> of _CRS
> Kernel Version: v5.19
>
> Guilherme G. Piccoli reported that v5.18 boots fine on Steam Deck, but
> v5.19-rc1 does not. He bisected it to 4c5e242d3e93 ("x86/PCI: Clip only host
> bridge windows for E820 regions") [1].
>
> A quirk similar to [2] that disables E820 clipping makes v5.19-rc1 work again.
>
> The reason why v5.18 (which always does E820 clipping by default) works, while
> v5.19-rc1 (which also does E820 clipping on this platform) does not has not
> been explained yet.
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/linus/4c5e242d3e93
> [2] https://git.kernel.org/linus/d341838d776a
To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the cracks unnoticed, I'm
adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot:
#regzbot ^introduced 4c5e242d3e93
#regzbot title x86/PCI/e820:Steam Deck fails to boot when E820 entries
clipped out of _CRS
#regzbot ignore-activity
#regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216109
This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already
discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when
the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or
something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also
telling regzbot about it, as explained here:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/
Reminder for developers: When fixing the issue, add 'Link:' tags
pointing to the report (the mail this one replied to), as the kernel's
documentation call for; above page explains why this is important for
tracked regressions.
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists