On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 03:53:29PM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Thu, 2019-03-14 at 14:54 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 02:17:34PM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > On Thu, 2019-03-14 at 13:08 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 02:34:17PM -0500, Pat Riehecky wrote: > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=9cd34b3a1 > > > > > > > > > > The additional hardware support would be helpful in the 4.4 > > > > > long > > > > > term tree. > > > > > > > > > > e1000e: Initial support for KabeLake > > > > > i219 (4) and i219 (5) are the next LOM generations that will be > > > > > available on the next Intel platform (KabeLake). > > > > > This patch provides the initial support for the devices. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raanan Avargil <raanan.avargil@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Does this patch work properly on 4.4.y for this hardware with > > > > just > > > > this > > > > patch? > > > > > > > > Also, always cc: the authors of the patch when asking for them to > > > > be > > > > added to stable, to get their opinion/objection if needed. > > > > > > I am fine with commit 9cd34b3a1 "e1000e: Initial support for > > > KabeLake" > > > being backported. It is just the addition a device ids. > > > > Great, thanks! > > > > But, the patch does not apply to 4.4.y at all. Pat, can you make up > > a > > backport that I can apply and send it to us? > > I see that you do not have this commit on the 4.4.y tree: > > f3ed935de059 e1000e: initial support for i219-LM (3) > > Which is causing the issues that Greg is seeing. This commit is not a > "simple" add new device id type of patch. This commit would be a hard > requirement for the other commit to be applied. > > I am fine with both being applied, but this second commit adds code for > properly accessing the NVM for e1000_pch_spt devices (which all the > i219 devices are). Yeah, that's not worth it. Just use 4.9, or really 4.14, or even more realistic, 4.19 instead. Especially for any system that might be using this type of network card, you should NOT be using 4.4 or 4.9 there at the moment anyway. thanks, greg k-h
