From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D3CC433DB for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:07:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5591023A5C for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:07:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726274AbhAUUHd (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:07:33 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:17199 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725881AbhAUUH3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:07:29 -0500 IronPort-SDR: bEsIrpupcDZNP9XR7lja7t5az5WqTT2fegzWMjcUUpzkHkNoE4KyR+ifBfZHHHnpjwYDXe739b YWELRjaNFj1w== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9871"; a="166432312" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,365,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="166432312" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jan 2021 12:06:48 -0800 IronPort-SDR: uhzGFNIdTEucyivVagc5YmvdPO2Dl8rG7kXC1xcJEMkAE7QOQ//tt2LpdXfBzKe7NA+2pRly5+ 09v3Ie7csGMA== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,365,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="467605489" Received: from rhweight-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.0.2.4]) ([10.212.217.24]) by fmsmga001-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jan 2021 12:06:46 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] Intel MAX10 BMC Secure Update Driver To: Tom Rix , mdf@kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: lgoncalv@redhat.com, yilun.xu@intel.com, hao.wu@intel.com, matthew.gerlach@intel.com References: <20210105230855.15019-1-russell.h.weight@intel.com> From: Russ Weight Message-ID: <7cd0fc34-6e6f-4646-a7a9-7c4fb94bc45b@intel.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:06:46 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org On 1/19/21 12:49 PM, Tom Rix wrote: > On 1/5/21 3:08 PM, Russ Weight wrote: > > ... > >> .../testing/sysfs-driver-intel-m10-bmc-secure | 61 ++ >> MAINTAINERS | 2 + >> drivers/fpga/Kconfig | 11 + >> drivers/fpga/Makefile | 3 + >> drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c | 543 ++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h | 85 +++ > I am having trouble pulling this into my testing branch where i am tracking some other changes to intel-m10-bmc.h > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210114231648.199685-1-russell.h.weight@intel.com/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1609999628-12748-3-git-send-email-yilun.xu@intel.com/ > > so I am wondering if it makes sense to split the intel-m10-bmc.h change out of this patchset and sent as a single patch to mfd subsystem ?  The change is a bunch of #defines that don't do anything on their own, but will conflict with other similar additions to the h file. If I rebase my working branch onto the latest linux-next, I don't see any issues. But if I apply the patches to the latest linux-next (git am), then I do. Clearly I need to fix up this patch and resend. If there are no objections, I'll split this patch out as an individual patch for the next submission. - Russ > > Tom > >> 6 files changed, 705 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-intel-m10-bmc-secure >> create mode 100644 drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c >>