On 20/04/2023 12:02, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: >> [...] >>> Which "one" are you referring to here? >>> >>> confused, >>> >>> greg k-h >> >> This one, sent in this email thread. > > I don't have "this email thread" anymore, remember, some of us get > thousand+ emails a day...
I don't really understand the issue to be honest, we are talking in the very email thread! The email was sent April/18, it's not old or anything. But in any case, for reference, this is the original email from the lore archives: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20230418221522.1287942-1-gpicc...@igalia.com/ > >> The title of the patch is "drm/amdgpu/vcn: Disable indirect SRAM on >> Vangogh broken BIOSes", target is 6.1.y and (one of the) upstream >> hash(es) is 542a56e8eb44 heh > > But that commit says it fixes a problem in the 6.2 tree, why is this > relevant for 6.1.y? > That is explained in the email and the very reason for that, is the duplicate hashes we are discussing here. The fix commit in question points the "Fixes:" tag to 82132ecc5432 ("drm/amdgpu: enable Vangogh VCN indirect sram mode"), which appears to be in 6.2 tree, right? But notice that 9a8cc8cabc1e ("drm/amdgpu: enable Vangogh VCN indirect sram mode") is the *same* offender and..is present on 6.1 ! In other words, when I first wrote this fix, I just checked the tree quickly and came up with "Fixes: 82132ecc5432", but to be thorough, I should have pointed the fixes tag to 9a8cc8cabc1e, to pick it on 6.1.y. tl;dr: the offender is present on 6.1.y, but this fix is not, hence I'm hereby requesting the merge. Some backport/context adjustment was necessary and it was properly tested in the Steam Deck. Thanks, Guilherme
