linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] mailbox: pcc: Refactor and improve initialisation and interrupt handling

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1313947b-dfe6-480c-bc6c-8d39a4dc88f5@amperemail.onmicrosoft.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 12:08:44 -0500
From: Adam Young <admiyo@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc: Adam Young <admiyo@...amperecomputing.com>,
 Robbie King <robbiek@...ghtlabs.com>, Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com>,
 Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mailbox: pcc: Refactor and improve initialisation and
 interrupt handling


On 1/26/26 12:07, Adam Young wrote:
>
>
> On 1/12/26 11:55, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:40:56PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Hi Jassi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 08:08:14PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>> This series refines and stabilizes the PCC mailbox driver to improve
>>>> initialisation order, interrupt handling, and completion signaling.
>>>>
>>> Are you happy to pull these patches directly from the list or do you
>>> prefer me to send you pull request or do you want me to direct this via
>>> ACPI/Rafael's tree. Please advice.
>>>
>> Hi Jassi,
>>
>> Sorry for the nag. I did see these patches in -next as well as your
>> v6.19 merge window pull request which didn't make it to Linus tree.
>> However I don't see it -next any longer. Please advice if you want
>> anything from my side so that this can be merged for v6.20/v7.0
>>
>
> I thought you had an approach you wanted to implement for the 
> functions that provided access to the Mailbox internals: you wanted to 
> do them inline but hadn't gotten to them yet.  Is that still the 
> case?  I will resubmit mine as is with -next if that is acceptable.
>
Apologies, I realize now that this was about the previous set of 
patches, and not the ones that Sudeep and I were discussing that depend 
on them.