Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/radeon: process the VCE interrupt on SI and Trinity

[Alex Deucher]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 10:31 AM Timur Kristóf <timur.kristof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2026-10-27 at 11:21 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > On 10/27/26 01:15, Matheus Tagliari wrote:
> > > Hi Timur, Christian,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the input, Timur.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I'm not opposed to a backport. Fixing VCE1 for people
> > > stuck
> > > on the radeon driver with an LTS kernel is exactly the case that
> > > made me
> > > look into this in the first place. But my goal is only to help, and
> > > as I
> > > said before, I do not want to push a change you don't want.
> > >
> > > Christian, if you'd rather keep this out of stable, I'll drop the
> > > "Cc: stable" tag in v3 and leave the decision to you. If there is a
> > > specific concern behind it (risk of regressions on other SI/Trinity
> > > parts, say), I'd be glad to hear it. I can also try to address it,
> > > for
> > > example with more testing, so that a backport can be reconsidered
> > > later.
> >
> > I was part of the Trinity bringup back (I still have the engineering
> > sample here :) and I filled a full swear jar bringing VCE up on that
> > HW.
> >
> > Interrupts were definitely not working correctly back then.
> >
> > I have no idea when they were fixed but I want to avoid that people
> > start streaming that this change made their system not boot any more
> > and we are forced to revert a patch on stable kernels everywhere.
>
> @Christian
> Are you saying that you are worried about the backport because it may
> regress Trinity?
>
> @Matheus
> Would it be possible to only use the interrupt on SI and not on Trinity
> so as to alleviate Christian's worry?

I've committed the patches already.  I don't think the stable really
matters that much.  If there is a problem, we can revert.

Alex