On 2024-02-27 08:18, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Luiz,
On 2/26/24 17:10, 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).
Hmm, new hw enablement typically goes through -next and not to
the current fixes branch. And AFAICT this is new hw enablement,
not a regression / bug-fix.
Is there any special reason why this needs to be in 6.8 ?
To me it sounded like fix to 1a218d312e65 ("platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc:
Add Mellanox BlueField PMC driver") and 423c3361855c ("platform/mellanox:
mlxbf-pmc: Add support for BlueField-3") although not explicitly marked as
such.
But I'm fine with taking these through for-next, it's relatively late into
the cycle already anyway.
For RHEL kernels you can cherry-pick patches from -next
as necessary.
It's also possible to send them later directly to stable folks once
Linus' tree has them after the next merge window if you feel they're
useful for stable inclusion.
Fair enough. Let's proceed with the original plan of having them merged
in the for-next branch. Sorry for the noise this discussion may have
caused.
- Luiz
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/
Hmm, those are not small patches, any other reason
why this really should go to -next IMHO.
Those two linked patches are totally unrelated.
