Messages in this thread | | | From | Jani Nikula <> | Subject | RE: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for Geminilake | Date | Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:02:52 +0300 |
| |
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, "Srivatsa, Anusha" <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com> wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:jani.nikula@linux.intel.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM >>To: Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@gmail.com> >>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>; Srivatsa, Anusha >><anusha.srivatsa@intel.com>; Wajdeczko, Michal >><Michal.Wajdeczko@intel.com>; Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; >>airlied@linux.ie; joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; >>stable@vger.kernel.org; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri- >>devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for >>Geminilake >> >>On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@gmail.com> wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>> >>>> NAK on indiscriminate Cc: stable. There are zero guarantees that >>>> older kernels will work with whatever firmware you throw at them. >>>> >>> >>> I included 'Cc: stable' so the patch would get added to the v4.16 and >>> v4.15 kernels which I have tested with the patch. I found that earlier >>> kernels didn't support the 'linux-firmware' package required to get >>> wifi working on Intel's new Gemini Lake NUC. >> >>You realize that this patch should have nothing to do with wifi? >> >>Rodrigo, Anusha, if you think Cc: stable is appropriate, please indicate the specific >>versions of stable it is appropriate for. > > Hi Jani, > > The stable kernel version is 4.12 and beyond. > It is appropriate to add the CC: stable in my opinion
Who tested the firmware with v4.12 and later? We only have the CI results against *current* drm-tip. We don't even know about v4.16.
I'm not going to ack and take responsibility for the stable backports unless someone actually comes forward with credible Tested-bys.
BR, Jani.
> > Anusha >>BR, >>Jani. >> >>> >>>> >>>> PS. How is this a "RESEND"? I haven't seen this before. >>>> >>> >>> It is a 'RESEND' for that very reason. I initially sent the patch to >>> the same people as a similar patch >>> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10143637/) however after realising >>> this omitted required addresses I added them and resent the patch. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Ian >> >>-- >>Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
-- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
| |