Hi Hans, > > > [...] > > > Ugh, no, *NO*! I really expect Intel to do better here! > > > Sorry, I didn't realize the CPUID is not added to rc1. Our internal tree constantly gets rebased. So difficult to catch. As you rule, I will communicate internally that apply on top of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/log/?h=for-next If doesn't build atleast add that to the patch notes. BTW, I send my PULL from this tree and branch always. Thanks, Srinivas > > > 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 > >
