linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] platform/x86/intel: pmc/core: Add Raptor Lake support to pmc core driver

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

Date:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 09:50:42 +0200
From:   Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Gayatri Kammela <gayatri.kammela@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     markgross@...nel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, irenic.rajneesh@...il.com,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Box <david.e.box@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] platform/x86/intel: pmc/core: Add Raptor Lake
 support to pmc core driver

On 19. 09. 22, 13:41, Hans de Goede wrote:

> On 9/13/22 00:33, Gayatri Kammela wrote:
>> Add Raptor Lake client parts (both RPL and RPL_S) support to pmc core
>> driver. Raptor Lake client parts reuse all the Alder Lake PCH IPs.
>>
>> Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>
>> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>> Cc: David Box <david.e.box@...el.com>
>> Acked-by: Rajneesh Bhardwaj <irenic.rajneesh@...il.com>
>> Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Gayatri Kammela <gayatri.kammela@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1:
>> 1) Added a dependency patch- ea902bcc1943f7539200ec464de3f54335588774 :
>>   "x86/cpu: Add new Raptor Lake CPU model number".
>> 2) Rebased the above patch on v6.0-rc1 with "Acked-by" from Hans and
>>   Rajneesh.
> 
> I still cannot take this, since patch 1/2 is *already merged* through
> another tree, so me cherry-picking it leads to potential conflicts.
> 
> As I have already explained twice you need to submit this upstream
> throuh the same tree which has the original merge of patch 1/2.

Hi, friendly ping: has this ever happened, Gayatri?

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs