linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ata: ahci: Skip 200 ms debounce delay for AMD 300 Series Chipset SATA Controller

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fa09ed5b-9c56-267e-6d13-0e020b8887e4@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:26:41 +0100
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ata: ahci: Skip 200 ms debounce delay for AMD 300
 Series Chipset SATA Controller

On 2022/09/13 16:28, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> [Public]
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 10:23
>> To: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
>> Cc: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@....com>; Hans de Goede
>> <hdegoede@...hat.com>; linux-ide@...r.kernel.org; LKML <linux-
>> kernel@...r.kernel.org>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ata: ahci: Skip 200 ms debounce delay for AMD 300
>> Series Chipset SATA Controller
>>
>> Dear Damien,
>>
>>
>> Am 01.09.22 um 00:13 schrieb Damien Le Moal:
>>> On 8/30/22 18:05, Paul Menzel wrote:
>>
>> […]
>>
>>>> Am 01.06.22 um 10:58 schrieb Damien Le Moal:
>>>>> On 6/1/22 01:18, Paul Menzel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> With that in mind, I am not planning to apply your previous patches
>>>>>>>>> for 5.18, as they would conflict and would only end up being churn
>>>>>>>>> since the delay removal by default will undo your changes.
>>>>>>>> Obviously, I do not agree, as this would give the a little bit more
>>>>>>>> testing already, if changing the default is a good idea. Also, if the
>>>>>>>> conflict will be hard to resolve, I happily do it (the patches could
>>>>>>>> even be reverted on top – git commits are cheap and easy to handle).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The conflict is not hard to resolve. The point is that my patches changing
>>>>>>> the default to no debounce delay completely remove the changes of your
>>>>>>> patch to do the same for one or some adapters. So adding your patches
>> now
>>>>>>> and then my patches on top does not make much sense at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If too many problems show up and I end up reverting/removing the
>> patches,
>>>>>>> then I will be happy to take your patches for the adapter you tested. Note
>>>>>>> that *all* the machines I have tested so far are OK without a debounce
>>>>>>> delay too. So we could add them too... And endup with a long list of
>>>>>>> adapters that use the default ahci driver without debounce delay. The
>> goal
>>>>>>> of changing the default to no delay is to avoid that. So far, the adapters
>>>>>>> I have identified that need the delay have their own declaration, so we
>>>>>>> only need to add a flag there. Simpler change that listing up adapters
>>>>>>> that are OK without the delay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I wrote my piece, but you are the maintainer, so it’s your call
>>>>>>>> and I stop bothering you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just wanted to inquire about the status of your changes? I do not find
>>>>>> them in your `for-5.19` branch. As they should be tested in linux-next
>>>>>> before the merge window opens, if these are not ready yet, could you
>>>>>> please apply my (tested) patches?
>>>>>
>>>>> I could, but 5.19 now has an updated libata.force kernel parameter that
>>>>> allows one to disable the debounce delay for a particular port or for all
>>>>> ports of an adapter. See libata.force=x.y:nodbdelay for a port y of
>>>>> adapter x or libata.force=x:nodbdelay for all ports of adapter x.
>>>>
>>>> This is commit 3af9ca4d341d (ata: libata-core: Improve link flags forced
>>>> settings) [1]. Thank you, this is really useful, but easily overlooked. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> I still plan to revisit the arbitrary link debounce timers but I prefer to
>>>>> have the power management cleanup applied first. The reason is that link
>>>>> debounce depends on PHY readiness, which itself depends heavily on power
>>>>> mode transitions. My plan is to get this done during this cycle for
>>>>> release with 5.20 and then fix on top the arbitrary delays for 5.21.
>>>>
>>>> Nice. Can you share the current status?
>>>
>>> No progress. I need to put together a series with all the patches that
>>> were sent already. Unless Mario can resend something ?
>>
>> No reply from Mario.
> 
> I think what happened here is there was related patches from another party
> that got tangled up with this.

Yes, patches from Runa touch the same area. We need to put everything together i
a nice series. Will try to do so, but busy this week and next (Plumbers and
vacation). If you can Mario, that would be welcome too :)



-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research