From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Fix multiple GOP device support Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:02:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20151014150215.GC2782@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1444659236-24837-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> <1444659236-24837-2-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20151014144715.GA17890@gmail.com> <20151014145103.GB17890@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151014145103.GB17890@gmail.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , =?utf-8?B?S8WRdsOhZ8OzLCBab2x0w6Fu?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett , stable@vger.kernel.org, Matt Fleming List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 14 Oct, at 04:51:04PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Ah, I see, this is a subtle semantic conflict with pending v4.4 EFI changes in > tip:core/efi, which changed fb_base from u32 to u64: > > ae2ee627dc87 ("efifb: Add support for 64-bit frame buffer addresses") Yeah, that's exactly the issue. I should have given you a heads up about this but I forgot that there were two patches to this area in separate branches. > (Interestingly there was no textual conflict between this patch and that commit.) > > So the fix patch is fine as-is for v4.3, but needs a conflict resolution for the > pending v4.4 commit. > > I've applied it that way. Do you need me to send a patch on top or have you taken care of the semantic conflict for v4.4? (the change you originally proposed, s/u32/u64/, looked fine) -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center