Message-ID: <d5000215-68fa-4320-b5ce-639143e8f52c@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:28:48 -0500
From: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: shravankr@...dia.com, davthompson@...dia.com, ndalvi@...hat.com,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading

On 2024-02-27 08:18, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
>> Hi Luiz,
>>
>> On 2/26/24 17:10, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-26 11:04, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-02-26 08:27, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:57:28 -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mlxbf-pmc driver fails to load when the firmware reports a new but not
>>>>>>> yet implemented performance block. I can reproduce this today with a
>>>>>>> Bluefield-3 card and UEFI version 4.6.0-18-g7d063bb-BId13035, since this
>>>>>>> reports the new clock_measure performance block.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This[1] patch from Shravan implements the clock_measure support and will
>>>>>>> solve the issue. But this series avoids the situation by ignoring and
>>>>>>> logging unsupported performance blocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your contribution, it has been applied to my local
>>>>>> review-ilpo branch. Note it will show up in the public
>>>>>> platform-drivers-x86/review-ilpo branch only once I've pushed my
>>>>>> local branch there, which might take a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Ilpo and thanks Hans for the review.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only detail is that we probably want this merged for 6.8 since
>>>>> the driver doesn't currently load with the configuration mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, sorry, I missed the mention in the coverletter.
>>>>
>>>> So you'd want I drop these from review-ilpo branch as there they end
>>>> up into for-next branch, and they should go through Hans instead who
>>>> handles fixes branch for this cycle?
>>>
>>> If that's the path to get this series merged for this cycle then yes,
>>> but let's see if Hans agrees (sorry that I didn't know this before
>>> posting).
>>
>> Hmm, new hw enablement typically goes through -next and not to
>> the current fixes branch. And AFAICT this is new hw enablement,
>> not a regression / bug-fix.
>>
>> Is there any special reason why this needs to be in 6.8 ?
> 
> To me it sounded like fix to 1a218d312e65 ("platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc:
> Add Mellanox BlueField PMC driver") and 423c3361855c ("platform/mellanox:
> mlxbf-pmc: Add support for BlueField-3") although not explicitly marked as
> such.
> 
> But I'm fine with taking these through for-next, it's relatively late into
> the cycle already anyway.
> 
>> For RHEL kernels you can cherry-pick patches from -next
>> as necessary.
> 
> It's also possible to send them later directly to stable folks once
> Linus' tree has them after the next merge window if you feel they're
> useful for stable inclusion.

Fair enough. Let's proceed with the original plan of having them merged
in the for-next branch. Sorry for the noise this discussion may have
caused.

- Luiz

> 
>>> One additional detail is that this series is on top of linux-next, which
>>> has two additional mlxbf-pmc changes:
>>>
>>> * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/39be055af3506ce6f843d11e45d71620f2a96e26.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/
>>> * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d8548c70339a29258a906b2b518e5c48f669795c.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/
>>
>> Hmm, those are not small patches, any other reason
>> why this really should go to -next IMHO.
> 
> Those two linked patches are totally unrelated.
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists