[PATCH v2 0/4] x86, dmi: introduce and use dmi_get_bios_year()

[PATCH v2 0/4] x86, dmi: introduce and use dmi_get_bios_year()

[Andy Shevchenko]

Introduce a new helper to extract a year from DMI BIOS date since there
are most existing users do and newcomers would utilize as well.

Ingo, this is respin of the patches in x86/platform. I think, if it's
possible to rebase, would be easier just to replace existing ones.

Otherwise I would reorganize them as a series of fixups.

Bjorn, Jean, Rafael, thank you for your reviews!

Since v1:
- move the helper to be regular function (Bjorn, Rafael)
- fix a potential regression introduced in pci_acpi_crs_quirks() (Jean)
- adjust subject lines and commit message bodies (Bjorn)
- add tags (Bjorn, Jean)

Andy Shevchenko (4):
  firmware: dmi_scan: Introduce the dmi_get_bios_year() helper
  x86/PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper
  ACPI / sleep: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year()
    helper
  PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper

 arch/x86/pci/acpi.c            | 10 +++++-----
 arch/x86/pci/direct.c          |  5 ++---
 arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c |  9 ++-------
 drivers/acpi/sleep.c           |  4 +---
 drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c    | 11 +++++++++++
 drivers/pci/pci.c              |  6 +-----
 include/linux/dmi.h            |  2 ++
 7 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

-- 
2.16.1

[PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: dmi_scan: Introduce the dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Andy Shevchenko]

The pattern to only extract the year portion of date is used in
several places and more users may come.

By using this helper they may create slightly cleaner code.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 11 +++++++++++
 include/linux/dmi.h         |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
index 6ce299926196..616ec17cc802 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
@@ -1015,6 +1015,17 @@ bool dmi_get_date(int field, int *yearp, int *monthp, int *dayp)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_date);
 
+int dmi_get_bios_year(void)
+{
+	bool exists;
+	int year;
+
+	exists = dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL);
+
+	return exists ? year : -ENODATA;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_bios_year);
+
 /**
  *	dmi_walk - Walk the DMI table and get called back for every record
  *	@decode: Callback function
diff --git a/include/linux/dmi.h b/include/linux/dmi.h
index 46e151172d95..6a86d8db16d9 100644
--- a/include/linux/dmi.h
+++ b/include/linux/dmi.h
@@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ extern void dmi_scan_machine(void);
 extern void dmi_memdev_walk(void);
 extern void dmi_set_dump_stack_arch_desc(void);
 extern bool dmi_get_date(int field, int *yearp, int *monthp, int *dayp);
+extern int dmi_get_bios_year(void);
 extern int dmi_name_in_vendors(const char *str);
 extern int dmi_name_in_serial(const char *str);
 extern int dmi_available;
@@ -133,6 +134,7 @@ static inline bool dmi_get_date(int field, int *yearp, int *monthp, int *dayp)
 		*dayp = 0;
 	return false;
 }
+static inline int dmi_get_bios_year(void) { return -ENXIO; }
 static inline int dmi_name_in_vendors(const char *s) { return 0; }
 static inline int dmi_name_in_serial(const char *s) { return 0; }
 #define dmi_available 0
-- 
2.16.1

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: dmi_scan: Introduce the dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Lukas Wunner]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 08:02:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> @@ -1015,6 +1015,17 @@ bool dmi_get_date(int field, int *yearp, int *monthp, int *dayp)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_date);
>  
> +int dmi_get_bios_year(void)
> +{
> +	bool exists;
> +	int year;
> +
> +	exists = dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL);
> +
> +	return exists ? year : -ENODATA;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_bios_year);

It would be good if kerneldoc was added to this function.  One thing
to mention is that direct usage of the function in a conditional only
works reliably when asserting an exact or minimum BIOS date.  It doesn't
work reliably when asserting a maximum BIOS date unless the return
value is explicitly checked for -ENODATA.  (Fortunately that use case
seems to be rare, but still worth mentioning IMHO.)


> +static inline int dmi_get_bios_year(void) { return -ENXIO; }

Shouldn't this be -ENODATA as well for consistency?  Otherwise one would
have to check for -ENODATA *and* -ENXIO.

Thanks,

Lukas

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: dmi_scan: Introduce the dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 15:05 +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 08:02:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> > @@ -1015,6 +1015,17 @@ bool dmi_get_date(int field, int *yearp, int
> > *monthp, int *dayp)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_date);
> >  
> > +int dmi_get_bios_year(void)
> > +{
> > +	bool exists;
> > +	int year;
> > +
> > +	exists = dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL);
> > +
> > +	return exists ? year : -ENODATA;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_bios_year);
> 
> It would be good if kerneldoc was added to this function.

Perhaps.

>   One thing
> to mention is that direct usage of the function in a conditional only
> works reliably when asserting an exact or minimum BIOS date.  It
> doesn't
> work reliably when asserting a maximum BIOS date unless the return
> value is explicitly checked for -ENODATA.

Just < 0.

>   (Fortunately that use case
> seems to be rare, but still worth mentioning IMHO.)
> 
> 
> > +static inline int dmi_get_bios_year(void) { return -ENXIO; }
> 
> Shouldn't this be -ENODATA as well for consistency?  Otherwise one
> would
> have to check for -ENODATA *and* -ENXIO.

I was thinking about this, though checking for negative errors is a
pattern in kernel. If user would like to distinguish what really
happened, then they may to check for explicit code.

ENXIO is chosen to be consistent with other calls when !DMI.
ENODATA on the other hand is not related to access to the data, but to
the contents of it. So, I would like to keep them different.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: dmi_scan: Introduce the dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Andy,

On Thu,  1 Mar 2018 20:02:17 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The pattern to only extract the year portion of date is used in
> several places and more users may come.
> 
> By using this helper they may create slightly cleaner code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 11 +++++++++++
>  include/linux/dmi.h         |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> index 6ce299926196..616ec17cc802 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> @@ -1015,6 +1015,17 @@ bool dmi_get_date(int field, int *yearp, int *monthp, int *dayp)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_date);
>  
> +int dmi_get_bios_year(void)
> +{
> +	bool exists;
> +	int year;
> +
> +	exists = dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL);
> +
> +	return exists ? year : -ENODATA;

If the DMI field exists but year can't be parsed, "exists" is true but
"year" is 0. From the caller's perspective, it is the same as if the
field did not exist (year is not available in both cases), but the
function returns 0 in one case and -ENODATA in the other. Don't you
think that:

	return year ? year : -ENODATA;

would serve the caller better?

> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_bios_year);
> +
>  /**
>   *	dmi_walk - Walk the DMI table and get called back for every record
>   *	@decode: Callback function
> diff --git a/include/linux/dmi.h b/include/linux/dmi.h
> index 46e151172d95..6a86d8db16d9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dmi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dmi.h
> @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ extern void dmi_scan_machine(void);
>  extern void dmi_memdev_walk(void);
>  extern void dmi_set_dump_stack_arch_desc(void);
>  extern bool dmi_get_date(int field, int *yearp, int *monthp, int *dayp);
> +extern int dmi_get_bios_year(void);
>  extern int dmi_name_in_vendors(const char *str);
>  extern int dmi_name_in_serial(const char *str);
>  extern int dmi_available;
> @@ -133,6 +134,7 @@ static inline bool dmi_get_date(int field, int *yearp, int *monthp, int *dayp)
>  		*dayp = 0;
>  	return false;
>  }
> +static inline int dmi_get_bios_year(void) { return -ENXIO; }
>  static inline int dmi_name_in_vendors(const char *s) { return 0; }
>  static inline int dmi_name_in_serial(const char *s) { return 0; }
>  #define dmi_available 0

Looks good otherwise.

Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

[PATCH v2 2/4] x86/PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Andy Shevchenko]

Use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper instead of open-coding its
functionality.

No changes in functionality.

Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/pci/acpi.c            | 10 +++++-----
 arch/x86/pci/direct.c          |  5 ++---
 arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c |  9 ++-------
 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
index 7df49c40665e..52b22137243f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
@@ -138,14 +138,14 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id pci_crs_quirks[] __initconst = {
 	{}
 };
 
+#define in_range(b, first, len) ((b) >= (first) && (b) <= (first) + (len) - 1)
+
 void __init pci_acpi_crs_quirks(void)
 {
-	int year;
+	int year = dmi_get_bios_year();
 
-	if (dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL) && year < 2008) {
-		if (iomem_resource.end <= 0xffffffff)
-			pci_use_crs = false;
-	}
+	if (in_range(year, 0, 2008) && iomem_resource.end <= 0xffffffff)
+		pci_use_crs = false;
 
 	dmi_check_system(pci_crs_quirks);
 
diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/direct.c b/arch/x86/pci/direct.c
index 2d9503323d10..a51074c55982 100644
--- a/arch/x86/pci/direct.c
+++ b/arch/x86/pci/direct.c
@@ -195,14 +195,13 @@ static const struct pci_raw_ops pci_direct_conf2 = {
 static int __init pci_sanity_check(const struct pci_raw_ops *o)
 {
 	u32 x = 0;
-	int year, devfn;
+	int devfn;
 
 	if (pci_probe & PCI_NO_CHECKS)
 		return 1;
 	/* Assume Type 1 works for newer systems.
 	   This handles machines that don't have anything on PCI Bus 0. */
-	dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL);
-	if (year >= 2001)
+	if (dmi_get_bios_year() >= 2001)
 		return 1;
 
 	for (devfn = 0; devfn < 0x100; devfn++) {
diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c b/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c
index 96684d0adcf9..5b93f9933562 100644
--- a/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c
+++ b/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c
@@ -547,19 +547,14 @@ static void __init pci_mmcfg_reject_broken(int early)
 static int __init acpi_mcfg_check_entry(struct acpi_table_mcfg *mcfg,
 					struct acpi_mcfg_allocation *cfg)
 {
-	int year;
-
 	if (cfg->address < 0xFFFFFFFF)
 		return 0;
 
 	if (!strncmp(mcfg->header.oem_id, "SGI", 3))
 		return 0;
 
-	if (mcfg->header.revision >= 1) {
-		if (dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL) &&
-		    year >= 2010)
-			return 0;
-	}
+	if (mcfg->header.revision >= 1 && dmi_get_bios_year() >= 2010)
+		return 0;
 
 	pr_err(PREFIX "MCFG region for %04x [bus %02x-%02x] at %#llx "
 	       "is above 4GB, ignored\n", cfg->pci_segment,
-- 
2.16.1

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] x86/PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Andy,

On Thu,  1 Mar 2018 20:02:18 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper instead of open-coding its
> functionality.
> 
> No changes in functionality.
> 
> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/pci/acpi.c            | 10 +++++-----
>  arch/x86/pci/direct.c          |  5 ++---
>  arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c |  9 ++-------
>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> index 7df49c40665e..52b22137243f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> @@ -138,14 +138,14 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id pci_crs_quirks[] __initconst = {
>  	{}
>  };
>  
> +#define in_range(b, first, len) ((b) >= (first) && (b) <= (first) + (len) - 1)
> +
>  void __init pci_acpi_crs_quirks(void)
>  {
> -	int year;
> +	int year = dmi_get_bios_year();
>  
> -	if (dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL) && year < 2008) {
> -		if (iomem_resource.end <= 0xffffffff)
> -			pci_use_crs = false;
> -	}
> +	if (in_range(year, 0, 2008) && iomem_resource.end <= 0xffffffff)

I don't like this, sorry. I find "in_range" confusing, there are many
definitions of it throughout the kernel which differ in the details
(some take a length as 3rd parameter, others take upper boundary, some
include the boundaries, some do not...) The following:

	if (year >= 0 && year < 2008 && iomem_resource.end <= 0xffffffff)

is a lot more readable in my opinion. No need to look-up a tricky macro
definition to figure what happens if year is 2008.

> +		pci_use_crs = false;
>  
>  	dmi_check_system(pci_crs_quirks);

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

[PATCH v2 3/4] ACPI / sleep: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Andy Shevchenko]

Use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper instead of open-coding its
functionality.

No changes in functionality.

Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/sleep.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
index c53119740a3c..23d9e6b88504 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
@@ -376,12 +376,10 @@ void __init acpi_sleep_no_blacklist(void)
 
 static void __init acpi_sleep_dmi_check(void)
 {
-	int year;
-
 	if (ignore_blacklist)
 		return;
 
-	if (dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL) && year >= 2012)
+	if (dmi_get_bios_year() >= 2012)
 		acpi_nvs_nosave_s3();
 
 	dmi_check_system(acpisleep_dmi_table);
-- 
2.16.1

[PATCH v2 4/4] PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Andy Shevchenko]

Use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper instead of open-coding its
functionality.

No changes in functionality.

Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/pci/pci.c | 6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
index f6a4dd10d9b0..ae654e21439d 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
@@ -2258,8 +2258,6 @@ void pci_config_pm_runtime_put(struct pci_dev *pdev)
  */
 bool pci_bridge_d3_possible(struct pci_dev *bridge)
 {
-	unsigned int year;
-
 	if (!pci_is_pcie(bridge))
 		return false;
 
@@ -2287,10 +2285,8 @@ bool pci_bridge_d3_possible(struct pci_dev *bridge)
 		 * It should be safe to put PCIe ports from 2015 or newer
 		 * to D3.
 		 */
-		if (dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL) &&
-		    year >= 2015) {
+		if (dmi_get_bios_year() >= 2015)
 			return true;
-		}
 		break;
 	}
 
-- 
2.16.1

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86, dmi: introduce and use dmi_get_bios_year()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Introduce a new helper to extract a year from DMI BIOS date since there
> are most existing users do and newcomers would utilize as well.
>
> Ingo, this is respin of the patches in x86/platform. I think, if it's
> possible to rebase, would be easier just to replace existing ones.
>
> Otherwise I would reorganize them as a series of fixups.
>
> Bjorn, Jean, Rafael, thank you for your reviews!
>
> Since v1:
> - move the helper to be regular function (Bjorn, Rafael)
> - fix a potential regression introduced in pci_acpi_crs_quirks() (Jean)
> - adjust subject lines and commit message bodies (Bjorn)
> - add tags (Bjorn, Jean)
>
> Andy Shevchenko (4):
>   firmware: dmi_scan: Introduce the dmi_get_bios_year() helper
>   x86/PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper
>   ACPI / sleep: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year()
>     helper
>   PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper

I can apply this or if you want to route it differently, please feel free to add

Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

to all of the patches in the series.

Thanks!

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86, dmi: introduce and use dmi_get_bios_year()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 12:10 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Introduce a new helper to extract a year from DMI BIOS date since
> > there
> > are most existing users do and newcomers would utilize as well.
> > 
> > Ingo, this is respin of the patches in x86/platform. I think, if
> > it's
> > possible to rebase, would be easier just to replace existing ones.
> > 
> > Otherwise I would reorganize them as a series of fixups.
> > 
> > Bjorn, Jean, Rafael, thank you for your reviews!
> > 
> > Since v1:
> > - move the helper to be regular function (Bjorn, Rafael)
> > - fix a potential regression introduced in pci_acpi_crs_quirks()
> > (Jean)
> > - adjust subject lines and commit message bodies (Bjorn)
> > - add tags (Bjorn, Jean)
> > 
> > Andy Shevchenko (4):
> >   firmware: dmi_scan: Introduce the dmi_get_bios_year() helper
> >   x86/PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper
> >   ACPI / sleep: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year()
> >     helper
> >   PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper
> 
> I can apply this or if you want to route it differently,

I don't know how to proceed here, Ingo applied v1 and there might be
options like remove old and reapply new, or do a series of fixups.

Ingo, can you suggest how to do this in the best way?

>  please feel free to add
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> to all of the patches in the series.
> 
> Thanks!

Thank you!

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86, dmi: introduce and use dmi_get_bios_year()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 12:10 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > Introduce a new helper to extract a year from DMI BIOS date since
>> > there
>> > are most existing users do and newcomers would utilize as well.
>> >
>> > Ingo, this is respin of the patches in x86/platform. I think, if
>> > it's
>> > possible to rebase, would be easier just to replace existing ones.
>> >
>> > Otherwise I would reorganize them as a series of fixups.
>> >
>> > Bjorn, Jean, Rafael, thank you for your reviews!
>> >
>> > Since v1:
>> > - move the helper to be regular function (Bjorn, Rafael)
>> > - fix a potential regression introduced in pci_acpi_crs_quirks()
>> > (Jean)
>> > - adjust subject lines and commit message bodies (Bjorn)
>> > - add tags (Bjorn, Jean)
>> >
>> > Andy Shevchenko (4):
>> >   firmware: dmi_scan: Introduce the dmi_get_bios_year() helper
>> >   x86/PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper
>> >   ACPI / sleep: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year()
>> >     helper
>> >   PCI: Simplify code by using the new dmi_get_bios_year() helper
>>
>> I can apply this or if you want to route it differently,
>
> I don't know how to proceed here, Ingo applied v1 and there might be
> options like remove old and reapply new, or do a series of fixups.
>
> Ingo, can you suggest how to do this in the best way?

AFAICS the tip workflow is that things are not rebased in there, only
reverted if need be, and if the previous version was taken to tip,
reverting it is not worth the hassle IMO.

I'd just wait for it to be integrated and post an update on top of it
or even on top of linux-next.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86, dmi: introduce and use dmi_get_bios_year()

[Ingo Molnar]

* Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:

> >> I can apply this or if you want to route it differently,
> >
> > I don't know how to proceed here, Ingo applied v1 and there might be
> > options like remove old and reapply new, or do a series of fixups.
> >
> > Ingo, can you suggest how to do this in the best way?
> 
> AFAICS the tip workflow is that things are not rebased in there, only
> reverted if need be, and if the previous version was taken to tip,
> reverting it is not worth the hassle IMO.
> 
> I'd just wait for it to be integrated and post an update on top of it
> or even on top of linux-next.

Yeah, indeed, we rebase in -tip only if absolutely necessary - and there were no 
real problems with the v1 version, right?

So it would be nice to have v2 as a delta against what is already in -tip.

Thanks,

	Ingo