On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, 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). > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx/ > * > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d8548c70339a29258a906b2b518e5c48f669795c.1707808180.git.shravankr@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Maybe those two should be included for 6.8 as well? Those look a new feature to me so they belong to for-next. So no, they will not end up into 6.8 (to fixes branch). If the 2 patches in this series do not apply without some for-next targetting dependencies, you should rebase on top of fixes branch and send a new version. About those two patches, please also see my reply. I intentionally only 2 patches of that series because I wanted to see sysfs documentation first so you should resend those two patches to for-next with sysfs documentation. -- i.
