Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:28:48 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading | From | Luiz Capitulino <> |
| |
On 2024-02-27 08:18, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > 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.
Fair enough. Let's proceed with the original plan of having them merged in the for-next branch. Sorry for the noise this discussion may have caused.
- Luiz
> >>> 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. > >
| |