On 2024-02-26 11:59, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
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.
Understood.
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'm actually not author of the other patches :)
- Luiz
