[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e17b38fe-97cb-4559-be97-36af0ab14789@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:30:35 -0400
From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: yazen.ghannam@....com, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
x86@...nel.org, Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] hwmon: (k10temp) Check return value of
amd_smn_read()
On 6/5/24 12:12 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 09:41:51AM -0400, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
>> I agree that patches 1-3 are not stable-worthy on their own. But I think
>> patch 4 is, and it requires 1-3 to avoid build errors.
>
> Which of the rules in the first section of
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst apply for patch 4?
>
> Because I don't see it.
>
"It fixes a problem like ... a hardware quirk ..."
This is described in patch 4:
---
Most systems will return 0 for SMN addresses that are not accessible.
This is in line with AMD convention that unavailable registers are
Read-as-Zero/Writes-Ignored.
However, some systems will return a "PCI Error Response" instead. This
value, along with an error code of 0 from the PCI config access, will
confuse callers of the amd_smn_read() function.
---
But I think it's fine to drop the stable tag after reading through the
rules again. I'll do option 2 or 3 if there's interest for specific
branches. And the cherry-pick thing should be easy to do if all the
prerequisites are already upstream.
Thanks,
Yazen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists