[PASEMI] Nemo board doesn't recognize any ATA disks with the pci-v5.16 updates

[Marc Zyngier]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 07:47:08 +0000,
Christian Zigotzky <chzigotzky at xenosoft.de> wrote:
> 
> On 11 November 2021 at 08:13 am, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 05:24:52 +0000,
> > Christian Zigotzky <chzigotzky at xenosoft.de> wrote:
> >> Hello Marc,
> >> 
> >> Here you are:
> >> https://forum.hyperion-entertainment.com/viewtopic.php?p=54406#p54406
> > This is not what I asked. I need the actual source file, or at the
> > very least the compiled object (the /sys/firmware/fdt file, for
> > example). Not an interpretation that I can't feed to the kernel.
> > 
> > Without this, I can't debug your problem.
> > 
> >> We are very happy to have the patch for reverting the bad commit
> >> because we want to test the new PASEMI i2c driver with support for the
> >> Apple M1 [1] on our Nemo boards.
> > You can revert the patch on your own. At this stage, we're not blindly
> > reverting things in the tree, but instead trying to understand what
> > is happening on your particular system.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 	M.
> > 
> I added a download link for the fdt file to the post [1]. Please read
> also Darren's comments in this post.

Thanks for that. The DT looks absolutely bonkers, no wonder that
things break with something like that.

But Darren's comments made me jump a bit, and I quote them here for
everyone to see:

<quote>
[...]

The dtb passed by the CFE firmware has a number of issues, which up till
now have been fixed by use of patches applied to the mainline kernel.
This occasionally causes problems with changes made to mainline.

[...]
</quote>

Am I right in understanding that the upstream kernel does not support
the machine out of the box, and that you actually have to apply out of
tree patches to make it work? That these patches have to do with the
IRQ routing?

If so, I wonder why upstream should revert a patch to work on a system
that isn't supported upstream the first place. I will still try and
come up with a solution for you. But asking for the revert of a patch
on these grounds is not, IMHO, acceptable. Also, please provide these
patches on the list so that I can help you to some extend (and I mean
*on the list*, not on a random forum that collects my information).

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.