On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 01:02:30PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 09:12:46PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 01:16:23PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The helper function returns all memory resources described for a > > > device regardless of the ACPI descriptor type (as long as it's > > > memory), but the first patch introduces new ACPI ID for the IOM > > > controller on Intel Meteor Lake and also separately modifies the > > > driver so that it can get the memory resource from Address Space > > > Resource Descriptor. > > > > > > An alternative would have been to introduce that helper function first > > > so we would not need to modify the driver when the new ID is added, > > > but then the helper would also need to be applied to the stable kernel > > > releases, and that does not feel necessary or appropriate in this > > > case, at least not IMO. > > > > > > So that's why I'm proposing here that we first add the ID, and only > > > after that introduce the helper, and only for mainline. That way the > > > patch introducing the ID is the only that goes to the stable releases. > > > > > > If that's okay, and these don't have any other problems, I assume it's > > > OK if Rafael takes all of these, including the ID? > > > > I took the id now, for 6.0-final as it seems to be totally independant > > of the other commits (otherwise you would not have tagged it for the > > stable tree.) > > > > The remainder should probably be resent and send through the acpi tree. > > Okay. The last patch depends on that ID patch, so Rafael, you need to > handle that conflict with immutable branch I guess. Or should we just > skip that patch for now? You can wait for -rc3 or so which should have that commit in it. thanks, greg k-h
