Re: [PATCH v9 5/6] platform/x86/intel/pmt: Add support for PMT base adjust

[Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 12:22:36PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Ruhl, Michael J wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David E. Box <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 8:57 PM
> > > To: Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Ruhl, Michael J <michael.j.ruhl@intel.com>; intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org;
> > > platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org; ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com; Brost,
> > > Matthew <matthew.brost@intel.com>; andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/6] platform/x86/intel/pmt: Add support for PMT
> > > base adjust
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2024-08-08 at 17:01 -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 12:49:58PM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > > Hi Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 08:23 -0400, Michael J. Ruhl wrote:
> > > > > > DVSEC offsets are based on the endpoint BAR.  If an endpoint is
> > > > > > not available allow the offset information to be adjusted by the
> > > > > > parent driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know I wrote the original version of these patches but I no longer
> > > > > like this solution. The s32 is too small for a 64 bit address and
> > > > > calculating the offset just to add it back in the PMT driver is
> > > > > unnecessary.
> > > >
> > > > yeap, 64bit sounds better indeed.
> > > >
> > > > > Instead, I sent you
> > > > > replacement patches for 5 and 6 that allow passing the telemetry
> > > > > region address directly to the PMT driver.
> > > >
> > > > Was these replacements sent straight to PMT list or to Mike so he can
> > > > adjust the series?
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if we should merge this through our drm-xe-next or
> > > > through PMT channels. Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > In any case, ack from my side to get the xe patches merged together
> > > > through PMT.
> > > >
> > > > But if someone prefer to get this merged through drm-xe-next, then we
> > > > need to act fast and get this ready with the final patches and acked
> > > > by you PMT maintainers, in the next 2 weeks because our window under
> > > > drm closes much earlier.
> > > >
> > > > Around 6.11-rc5 is when we close the drm window towards 6.12 and we
> > > > are almost within 6.11-rc3.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > 
> > > For me Patches 1-4 are good to go for BMG support. Patches 5 and 6 add DG2
> > > support but need some work. They should wait.
> > 
> > 
> > David, Ilpo,
> > 
> > The DG2 patches are a nice to have.
> > 
> > Please take patch 1 - 4.
> > 
> > I will revisit 5 and 6 (with David's suggested changes) in the future.
> 
> Hans is the one handling pdx86 for-next patches in this cycle (we as the 
> pdx86 maintainers alternate it on every other kernel release). Please 
> remember to add him into receipient list when you send the next version
> with my comments on 4th patch addressed (always include all relevant 
> maintainers when sending patches).

Hans, Ilmo, any chance we could get these PMT along with the Xe ones
into drm-xe-next -> drm-next?

Well, if you believe the risk of conflicts later on your side is bigger,
then let's forgot and you have my ack to add the Xe patches along with
your PMT patches on your tree.

But if there's a possibility of getting these through our tree, I would
appreciate.

Thanks,
Rodrigo.

> 
> -- 
>  i.