From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@redhat.com>,
shravankr@nvidia.com, davthompson@nvidia.com, ndalvi@redhat.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:18:48 +0200 (EET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4f6169e5-dee6-2188-f0a5-601b516be5fe@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eea32e56-2ea3-4a11-b1b9-8dd46dac7d72@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3160 bytes --]
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Luiz,
>
> On 2/26/24 17:10, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On 2024-02-26 11:04, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2024-02-26 08:27, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:57:28 -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The mlxbf-pmc driver fails to load when the firmware reports a new but not
> >>>>> yet implemented performance block. I can reproduce this today with a
> >>>>> Bluefield-3 card and UEFI version 4.6.0-18-g7d063bb-BId13035, since this
> >>>>> reports the new clock_measure performance block.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This[1] patch from Shravan implements the clock_measure support and will
> >>>>> solve the issue. But this series avoids the situation by ignoring and
> >>>>> logging unsupported performance blocks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for your contribution, it has been applied to my local
> >>>> review-ilpo branch. Note it will show up in the public
> >>>> platform-drivers-x86/review-ilpo branch only once I've pushed my
> >>>> local branch there, which might take a while.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you Ilpo and thanks Hans for the review.
> >>>
> >>> The only detail is that we probably want this merged for 6.8 since
> >>> the driver doesn't currently load with the configuration mentioned above.
> >>
> >> Oh, sorry, I missed the mention in the coverletter.
> >>
> >> So you'd want I drop these from review-ilpo branch as there they end
> >> up into for-next branch, and they should go through Hans instead who
> >> handles fixes branch for this cycle?
> >
> > If that's the path to get this series merged for this cycle then yes,
> > but let's see if Hans agrees (sorry that I didn't know this before
> > posting).
>
> Hmm, new hw enablement typically goes through -next and not to
> the current fixes branch. And AFAICT this is new hw enablement,
> not a regression / bug-fix.
>
> Is there any special reason why this needs to be in 6.8 ?
To me it sounded like fix to 1a218d312e65 ("platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc:
Add Mellanox BlueField PMC driver") and 423c3361855c ("platform/mellanox:
mlxbf-pmc: Add support for BlueField-3") although not explicitly marked as
such.
But I'm fine with taking these through for-next, it's relatively late into
the cycle already anyway.
> For RHEL kernels you can cherry-pick patches from -next
> as necessary.
It's also possible to send them later directly to stable folks once
Linus' tree has them after the next merge window if you feel they're
useful for stable inclusion.
> > One additional detail is that this series is on top of linux-next, which
> > has two additional mlxbf-pmc changes:
> >
> > * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/39be055af3506ce6f843d11e45d71620f2a96e26.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/
> > * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d8548c70339a29258a906b2b518e5c48f669795c.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/
>
> Hmm, those are not small patches, any other reason
> why this really should go to -next IMHO.
Those two linked patches are totally unrelated.
--
i.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-27 13:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-22 20:57 [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading Luiz Capitulino
2024-02-22 20:57 ` [PATCH 1/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: mlxbf_pmc_event_list(): make size ptr optional Luiz Capitulino
2024-02-26 10:49 ` Hans de Goede
2024-02-22 20:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Ignore unsupported performance blocks Luiz Capitulino
2024-02-26 10:49 ` Hans de Goede
2024-02-26 13:27 ` [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading Ilpo Järvinen
2024-02-26 15:49 ` Luiz Capitulino
2024-02-26 16:04 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-02-26 16:10 ` Luiz Capitulino
2024-02-26 16:57 ` Hans de Goede
2024-02-26 17:05 ` Luiz Capitulino
2024-02-27 13:18 ` Ilpo Järvinen [this message]
2024-02-27 18:28 ` Luiz Capitulino
2024-02-26 16:59 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-02-26 17:07 ` Luiz Capitulino
2024-02-27 13:20 ` Ilpo Järvinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4f6169e5-dee6-2188-f0a5-601b516be5fe@linux.intel.com \
--to=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davthompson@nvidia.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luizcap@redhat.com \
--cc=ndalvi@redhat.com \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shravankr@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox