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

["Timur Kristóf" <timur.kristof@gmail.com>]

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?

Thanks,
Timur