Hi Rafael, On 11/23/22 15:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 3:37 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 11/23/22 09:45, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: >>> Hello Hans, >>> >>> On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 16:30 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> There are 3 different issues with this patch, next time please >>> check your patch a bit more thorough before submitting it: >>> >>> 1. This is the first time I see this, or that the >>> platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> list sees this. Next time please make sure you address the patch to the right >>> people the first time you send it: >>> >>> sure, thanks. >>> >>> 2. This has checkpatch warnings which are easily fixable: >>> >>> [hans@shalem platform-drivers-x86]$ scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-platform-x86- >>> intel-uncore-freq-add-Emerald-Rapids-su.patch >>> WARNING: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per >>> line) >>> >>> OK. >>> >>> 3. This fails to build on top of: >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/log/?h=for-next >>> >>> OK, thanks for the pointer. I'd need platfrom-drivers-x86 git tree to include >>> this upstream commit: >>> >>> 7beade0dd41d x86/cpu: Add several Intel server CPU model numbers >>> >>> Would you please consider updating? >> >> Ugh, no, *NO*! I really expect Intel to do better here! >> >> As I repeated explained with the >> >> "platform/x86/intel: pmc/core: Add Raptor Lake support to pmc core driver" >> >> patch I cannot just go and cherry-pick random patches merged through other trees >> because that may cause conflicts and will cause the merge to look really >> funky. > > I don't think this is about requesting a cherry-pick though. > >> There are proper ways to do this and this is not it! >> >> This is something which Intel really *must* do correctly next time because >> having this discussion over and over again is becoming very tiresome! >> >> So the proper way to do starts with realizing *beforehand* that things >> will not build on top of pdx86/for-next. By like actually doing >> a build-test based on top of pdx86/for-next instead of this nonsense of >> repeatedly sending me broken patches. > > This patch is based on the mainline. The requisite commit has been > included into the Linus' tree since at least 6.1-rc4 AFAICS and I > suppose that it has been tested on top of that. Ah, I did not know that; and that is typically info which I would have expected to be explicitly mentioned in the non-existing cover-letter for this patch. > > You could in principle create a temporary branch based on 6.1-rc4 (or > a later -rc), apply the patch on top of it, merge your current branch > on top of that and merge it back into your current branch (that should > result in a fast-forward merge, so the temporary branch can be deleted > after it). Yes I could merge rc4 into my for-next, but I'm not really a big fan of back-merges like this. I try to keep my for-next history linear based on the last rc1, because I find seeing what is going on a lot easier that way. But if this happens more often I guess I may need to get used to doing back-merges more often then just after rc1 is out. What I don't understand is why this patch was not send as a part of the series starting which also had the "7beade0dd41d x86/cpu: Add several Intel server CPU model numbers" patch. That patch just adds a couple #define-s presumably there were more patches in that series actually using those defines. Things would have been cleaner / easier if this patch had simply been a part of that series and if it was merged in one go with that series... Btw this new CPU ID is also missing from: drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/core.c At least I assume it will need to be added there too, although I guess it might not be as simple as only adding the CPU-id match there ? > Alternatively, if you'd rather not do that, I can merge the Artem's > patch through the PM tree (it is PM-related after all). If you can do that, that would be great, thank you. > I suppose that your ACK would be applicable for that too? Yes. Regards, Hans
