Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3301 bytes --]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Luiz Capitulino wrote:

> 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@nvidia.com/
> > > *
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d8548c70339a29258a906b2b518e5c48f669795c.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/
> > > 
> > > 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 :)

Ah, sorry. I didn't pay enough attention to that. :-)


-- 
 i.