On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 10:58:23AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Xu Yilun wrote: > > > > > On 2023-01-31 at 09:08:35 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Xu Yilun wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Add support for PMCI-based flash access path and N6000 sec update > > > > > support. Access to flash staging area is different for N6000 from that > > > > > of the SPI interfaced counterparts. > > > > > > > > > > Introduce intel_m10bmc_flash_bulk_ops to allow interface specific > > > > > differentiations for the flash access path for sec update and make > > > > > m10bmc_sec_read/write() in sec update driver to use the new operations. > > > > > The .flash_mutex serializes read/read. Flash update (erase+write) must > > > > > use ->lock/unlock_write() to prevent reads during update (reads would > > > > > timeout on setting flash MUX as BMC will prevent it). > > > > > > > > > > Create a type specific RSU status reg handler for N6000 because the > > > > > field has moved from doorbell to auth result register. > > > > > > > > > > If a failure is detected while altering the flash MUX, it seems safer > > > > > to try to set it back and doesn't seem harmful. Likely there are enough > > > > > troubles in that case anyway so setting it back fails too (which is > > > > > harmless sans the small extra delay) or just confirms that the value > > > > > wasn't changed. > > > > > > > > > > Co-developed-by: Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Co-developed-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Acked-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230116100845.6153-12-ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-sec-update.c | 51 ++++- > > > > > drivers/mfd/intel-m10-bmc-pmci.c | 242 +++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > > include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h | 51 +++++ > > > > > 3 files changed, 336 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > I'm confused, what are you trying to achieve? > > > > > > I'm trying to submit the last patch to Greg's char-misc-next for > > > v6.3-rc1. The first 10 patches in this series have been accepted by him > > > in this cycle. > > > > > > This is the only one patch so I just send it rather than making an extra > > > pull request. > > > > That doesn't work with commits being routed in via multiple subsystems > > simultaneously. You'll end up with complications due to differing > > commit SHAs. > > > > If you really need this patch to be applied to FPGA (hint: I don't think > > it matters), then Greg will need to pull v2 [0] of the immutable topic > > branch. > > > > However, the whole set is being routed in via (at least) MFD anyway, so > > I think we can just leave it as it is for now. > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fpga/Y9d9MmttFUqnCyCs@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Ok, I'll drop this from my review queue, but I thought I had the branch > already pulled into my tree, but who knows anymore :) > > Maybe this should all just be resent after 6.3-rc1 is out as things will > be cleared up by then? You have 10 out of 11 patches applied (via my PR), but I missed a patch. To solve I submitted a [GIT PULL v2] which was the v1 with the missing patch on top. I doubt you need to do anything since the whole stack is going in via the MFD tree anyway. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
