Hi Bjorn, Vadim,
Following up to this old thread...
On 02/01/2017 10:18 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:53:25AM -0800, Vadim Lomovtsev wrote:
>>>> Because there is no such ACPI ID as "THRX0002" registered
>>>> (http://www.uefi.org/acpi_id_list).
There is still no "THRX" prefix registered with UEFI as of this morning.
>>> To be pedantically correct, I think you want "THRX" registered. Then
>>> you can manage the "0002" part internally without registering each
>>> individual device.
The upstream Linux kernel contains a quirk matching entry that looks for
"THRX". Therefore, you have already agreed (as of at least January) that
this is the prefix that you will use in any firmware updates to support
the latest upstream Linux kernel. Please register this prefix promptly.
>> Not sure if it would be registered that way, because (AFAIK)
>> it expected to be string constructed from Vendor ID (not the Product ID) plus
>> four hex digit manged internaly. So we suggest to change it to 177DXXXX
>> which corresponds to Cavium PCI ID https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/pci.ids.
>> It's also possible to use the 3-digit PNP ID, "CAV", to construct these
>> _HID/_CID/_SUB values (http://www.uefi.org/pnp_id_list).
>
> My point was that you only need to register the prefix ("CAV" or
> "THRX") of the PNP or ACPI ID. Then you manage the suffixes
> internally. You as long as you register "CAV" or "THRX", you can
> assign and use "THRX0002" yourself without registering that
> specifically.
>
>> So the FW will be updated accordingly.
Indeed.
The version Bjorn merged looks for "THRX". This is the version that you will
use, and you will promptly register that prefix with UEFI and provide fixes
for existing firmware to correctly use the solution that is upstream.
Thanks,
Jon.
Hi Jon,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 07:14:38AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi Bjorn, Vadim,
>
> Following up to this old thread...
>
> On 02/01/2017 10:18 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:53:25AM -0800, Vadim Lomovtsev wrote:
>
> >>>> Because there is no such ACPI ID as "THRX0002" registered
> >>>> (http://www.uefi.org/acpi_id_list).
>
> There is still no "THRX" prefix registered with UEFI as of this morning.
>
> >>> To be pedantically correct, I think you want "THRX" registered. Then
> >>> you can manage the "0002" part internally without registering each
> >>> individual device.
>
> The upstream Linux kernel contains a quirk matching entry that looks for
> "THRX". Therefore, you have already agreed (as of at least January) that
> this is the prefix that you will use in any firmware updates to support
> the latest upstream Linux kernel. Please register this prefix promptly.
And from what I know for now - we wont going to register this
since we have already regsitered "CAV" prefix for that. And this was the part
of our discussion also.
We had a bit long review of proper implementation of legacy firmware support,
so my apologise on that.
Please take a look at link to the patchset posted by Tomasz.
https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg568741.html
>
> >> Not sure if it would be registered that way, because (AFAIK)
> >> it expected to be string constructed from Vendor ID (not the Product ID) plus
> >> four hex digit manged internaly. So we suggest to change it to 177DXXXX
> >> which corresponds to Cavium PCI ID https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/pci.ids.
> >> It's also possible to use the 3-digit PNP ID, "CAV", to construct these
> >> _HID/_CID/_SUB values (http://www.uefi.org/pnp_id_list).
> >
> > My point was that you only need to register the prefix ("CAV" or
> > "THRX") of the PNP or ACPI ID. Then you manage the suffixes
> > internally. You as long as you register "CAV" or "THRX", you can
> > assign and use "THRX0002" yourself without registering that
> > specifically.
> >
And my reply here was :
"Yes, exactly. And the "CAV" perfix is already registered.
And I think will'll use it to keep things aligned to specs & rules."
> >> So the FW will be updated accordingly.
>
> Indeed.
Yes, it is now contains "CAVxxx" as _HID for device config object.
>
> The version Bjorn merged looks for "THRX". This is the version that you will
> use, and you will promptly register that prefix with UEFI and provide fixes
> for existing firmware to correctly use the solution that is upstream.
Cavium FW is updated accordingly to use already registered prefix.
For existent FW legacy support is posted by Tomasz.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jon.
>
WBR,
Vadim
Hi Vadim,
Thanks for your followup and attention to this matter. More below.
On 03/15/2017 07:33 AM, Vadim Lomovtsev wrote:
>> The upstream Linux kernel contains a quirk matching entry that looks for
>> "THRX". Therefore, you have already agreed (as of at least January) that
>> this is the prefix that you will use in any firmware updates to support
>> the latest upstream Linux kernel. Please register this prefix promptly.
>
> And from what I know for now - we wont going to register this
> since we have already regsitered "CAV" prefix for that. And this was the part
> of our discussion also.
>
> We had a bit long review of proper implementation of legacy firmware support,
> so my apologise on that.
>
> Please take a look at link to the patchset posted by Tomasz.
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg568741.html
I'll let others comment on the suitability of taking that for upstream.
>>>> So the FW will be updated accordingly.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
> Yes, it is now contains "CAVxxx" as _HID for device config object.
Which is different from the version that was merged into upstream. That
should never have happened. It will never happen again. I have spent some
time over the past few days ensuring folks understand that I will not
allow a repeat of this to occur the next time around. We will have
platforms that are bulletproof and supported by upstream with any
errata fixes in a very carefully controlled manner. There will
under no circumstances ever be a situation like this again.
>> The version Bjorn merged looks for "THRX". This is the version that you will
>> use, and you will promptly register that prefix with UEFI and provide fixes
>> for existing firmware to correctly use the solution that is upstream.
>
> Cavium FW is updated accordingly to use already registered prefix.
> For existent FW legacy support is posted by Tomasz.
I'm watching this to ensure it's cleaned up properly.
Jon.
On 03/16/2017 07:32 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi Vadim,
>
> Thanks for your followup and attention to this matter. More below.
>
> On 03/15/2017 07:33 AM, Vadim Lomovtsev wrote:
>
>>> The upstream Linux kernel contains a quirk matching entry that looks for
>>> "THRX". Therefore, you have already agreed (as of at least January) that
>>> this is the prefix that you will use in any firmware updates to support
>>> the latest upstream Linux kernel. Please register this prefix promptly.
>>
>> And from what I know for now - we wont going to register this
>> since we have already regsitered "CAV" prefix for that. And this was the part
>> of our discussion also.
>>
>> We had a bit long review of proper implementation of legacy firmware support,
>> so my apologise on that.
>>
>> Please take a look at link to the patchset posted by Tomasz.
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg568741.html
>
> I'll let others comment on the suitability of taking that for upstream.
>
>>>>> So the FW will be updated accordingly.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>> Yes, it is now contains "CAVxxx" as _HID for device config object.
>
> Which is different from the version that was merged into upstream. That
> should never have happened. It will never happen again. I have spent some
> time over the past few days ensuring folks understand that I will not
> allow a repeat of this to occur the next time around. We will have
> platforms that are bulletproof and supported by upstream with any
> errata fixes in a very carefully controlled manner. There will
> under no circumstances ever be a situation like this again.
We are still evaluating the merits of registering the values that
appeared in v4.10, and not changing them. We should know more in a
couple of days.
>
>>> The version Bjorn merged looks for "THRX". This is the version that you will
>>> use, and you will promptly register that prefix with UEFI and provide fixes
>>> for existing firmware to correctly use the solution that is upstream.
>>
>> Cavium FW is updated accordingly to use already registered prefix.
>> For existent FW legacy support is posted by Tomasz.
>
> I'm watching this to ensure it's cleaned up properly.
>
> Jon.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
On 03/16/2017 12:25 PM, David Daney wrote:
> On 03/16/2017 07:32 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> Yes, it is now contains "CAVxxx" as _HID for device config object.
>>
>> Which is different from the version that was merged into upstream. That
>> should never have happened. It will never happen again. I have spent some
>> time over the past few days ensuring folks understand that I will not
>> allow a repeat of this to occur the next time around. We will have
>> platforms that are bulletproof and supported by upstream with any
>> errata fixes in a very carefully controlled manner. There will
>> under no circumstances ever be a situation like this again.
>
> We are still evaluating the merits of registering the values that appeared
> in v4.10, and not changing them. We should know more in a couple of days.
Thanks David. What was the verdict? (for the public record). If we need to
get a change into upstream, let's get that teed up before 4.12 merge.
And for other folks following along with this thread: I'm not just picking
on Cavium here. I'll be doing the same with *every* ARM server SoC company
as necessary over the coming months. We are going to have militantly
compliant standards adherence in this industry and every ARM server SoC is
going to "just work" with an upstream Linux kernel with an ACPI enabled
platform. This will be so utterly clean and boring it'll be amazing.
Jon.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:38:07AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/16/2017 12:25 PM, David Daney wrote:
> > On 03/16/2017 07:32 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> >>> Yes, it is now contains "CAVxxx" as _HID for device config object.
> >>
> >> Which is different from the version that was merged into upstream. That
> >> should never have happened. It will never happen again. I have spent some
> >> time over the past few days ensuring folks understand that I will not
> >> allow a repeat of this to occur the next time around. We will have
> >> platforms that are bulletproof and supported by upstream with any
> >> errata fixes in a very carefully controlled manner. There will
> >> under no circumstances ever be a situation like this again.
> >
> > We are still evaluating the merits of registering the values that appeared
> > in v4.10, and not changing them. We should know more in a couple of days.
>
> Thanks David. What was the verdict? (for the public record). If we need to
> get a change into upstream, let's get that teed up before 4.12 merge.
>
> And for other folks following along with this thread: I'm not just picking
> on Cavium here. I'll be doing the same with *every* ARM server SoC company
> as necessary over the coming months. We are going to have militantly
> compliant standards adherence in this industry and every ARM server SoC is
> going to "just work" with an upstream Linux kernel with an ACPI enabled
> platform. This will be so utterly clean and boring it'll be amazing.
Thanks for keeping on top of this, Jon. I agree, we should not be
using unregistered vendor prefixes, e.g., the "THRX" added by
44f22bd91e88 ("PCI: Add MCFG quirks for Cavium ThunderX pass2.x host
controller"). I'm sorry I merged that without doing the due
diligence.
I suspect the resolution will be to register "THRX". If that doesn't
happen, I'll propose reverting 44f22bd91e88, not because I want to
break things, but only because I'm not personally in a position to do
anything smarter. So please propose a better solution that fits
within the ACPI _HID/_CID model :)
Bjorn
Hi Bjorn,
On 21.03.2017 14:47, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:38:07AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 03/16/2017 12:25 PM, David Daney wrote:
>>> On 03/16/2017 07:32 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, it is now contains "CAVxxx" as _HID for device config object.
>>>>
>>>> Which is different from the version that was merged into upstream. That
>>>> should never have happened. It will never happen again. I have spent some
>>>> time over the past few days ensuring folks understand that I will not
>>>> allow a repeat of this to occur the next time around. We will have
>>>> platforms that are bulletproof and supported by upstream with any
>>>> errata fixes in a very carefully controlled manner. There will
>>>> under no circumstances ever be a situation like this again.
>>>
>>> We are still evaluating the merits of registering the values that appeared
>>> in v4.10, and not changing them. We should know more in a couple of days.
>>
>> Thanks David. What was the verdict? (for the public record). If we need to
>> get a change into upstream, let's get that teed up before 4.12 merge.
>>
>> And for other folks following along with this thread: I'm not just picking
>> on Cavium here. I'll be doing the same with *every* ARM server SoC company
>> as necessary over the coming months. We are going to have militantly
>> compliant standards adherence in this industry and every ARM server SoC is
>> going to "just work" with an upstream Linux kernel with an ACPI enabled
>> platform. This will be so utterly clean and boring it'll be amazing.
>
> Thanks for keeping on top of this, Jon. I agree, we should not be
> using unregistered vendor prefixes, e.g., the "THRX" added by
> 44f22bd91e88 ("PCI: Add MCFG quirks for Cavium ThunderX pass2.x host
> controller"). I'm sorry I merged that without doing the due
> diligence.
Honestly, it is me who is responsible for this since I submitted the patch.
>
> I suspect the resolution will be to register "THRX". If that doesn't
> happen, I'll propose reverting 44f22bd91e88, not because I want to
> break things, but only because I'm not personally in a position to do
> anything smarter. So please propose a better solution that fits
> within the ACPI _HID/_CID model :)
I already submitted the patch to fix this. Please see:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/739042/
Thanks,
Tomasz
On 03/21/2017 07:17 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 21.03.2017 14:47, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:38:07AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On 03/16/2017 12:25 PM, David Daney wrote:
>>>> On 03/16/2017 07:32 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it is now contains "CAVxxx" as _HID for device config object.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is different from the version that was merged into upstream.
>>>>> That
>>>>> should never have happened. It will never happen again. I have
>>>>> spent some
>>>>> time over the past few days ensuring folks understand that I will not
>>>>> allow a repeat of this to occur the next time around. We will have
>>>>> platforms that are bulletproof and supported by upstream with any
>>>>> errata fixes in a very carefully controlled manner. There will
>>>>> under no circumstances ever be a situation like this again.
>>>>
>>>> We are still evaluating the merits of registering the values that
>>>> appeared
>>>> in v4.10, and not changing them. We should know more in a couple of
>>>> days.
>>>
>>> Thanks David. What was the verdict? (for the public record). If we
>>> need to
>>> get a change into upstream, let's get that teed up before 4.12 merge.
>>>
>>> And for other folks following along with this thread: I'm not just
>>> picking
>>> on Cavium here. I'll be doing the same with *every* ARM server SoC
>>> company
>>> as necessary over the coming months. We are going to have militantly
>>> compliant standards adherence in this industry and every ARM server
>>> SoC is
>>> going to "just work" with an upstream Linux kernel with an ACPI enabled
>>> platform. This will be so utterly clean and boring it'll be amazing.
>>
>> Thanks for keeping on top of this, Jon. I agree, we should not be
>> using unregistered vendor prefixes, e.g., the "THRX" added by
>> 44f22bd91e88 ("PCI: Add MCFG quirks for Cavium ThunderX pass2.x host
>> controller"). I'm sorry I merged that without doing the due
>> diligence.
>
> Honestly, it is me who is responsible for this since I submitted the patch.
Yes. After all this back and forth, Cavium has decided to deploy
firmware with "CAVxxx" as _HID.
The deciding factor was that the prefix is already registered and there
are probably fewer than 10 systems deployed with the experimental and
erroneous "THRXxxx" value. Neither option (switching the kernel to
"CAVxxx", or changing the firmware to use "THRXxxx") was without its
drawbacks. There were valid arguments on either side. In the end
internal momentum, among other factors, brought us to the conclusion
that using the "CAVxxx" as _HID, and trying to get Tomasz' patches
merged is what we will do. We fully realize that there may exists some
combinations of the Linux kernel and Cavium firmware (both officially
released, and experimental and unsupported) that don't result in
functional PCIe.
I, personally, am sorry that this screw up happened in the first place.
Let's hope that everyone learned something from the experience.
Thanks,
David Daney
>
>>
>> I suspect the resolution will be to register "THRX". If that doesn't
>> happen, I'll propose reverting 44f22bd91e88, not because I want to
>> break things, but only because I'm not personally in a position to do
>> anything smarter. So please propose a better solution that fits
>> within the ACPI _HID/_CID model :)
>
> I already submitted the patch to fix this. Please see:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/739042/
>
> Thanks,
> Tomasz
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:17:17PM +0100, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 21.03.2017 14:47, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:38:07AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>On 03/16/2017 12:25 PM, David Daney wrote:
> >>>On 03/16/2017 07:32 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>Yes, it is now contains "CAVxxx" as _HID for device config object.
> >>>>
> >>>>Which is different from the version that was merged into upstream. That
> >>>>should never have happened. It will never happen again. I have spent some
> >>>>time over the past few days ensuring folks understand that I will not
> >>>>allow a repeat of this to occur the next time around. We will have
> >>>>platforms that are bulletproof and supported by upstream with any
> >>>>errata fixes in a very carefully controlled manner. There will
> >>>>under no circumstances ever be a situation like this again.
> >>>
> >>>We are still evaluating the merits of registering the values that appeared
> >>>in v4.10, and not changing them. We should know more in a couple of days.
> >>
> >>Thanks David. What was the verdict? (for the public record). If we need to
> >>get a change into upstream, let's get that teed up before 4.12 merge.
> >>
> >>And for other folks following along with this thread: I'm not just picking
> >>on Cavium here. I'll be doing the same with *every* ARM server SoC company
> >>as necessary over the coming months. We are going to have militantly
> >>compliant standards adherence in this industry and every ARM server SoC is
> >>going to "just work" with an upstream Linux kernel with an ACPI enabled
> >>platform. This will be so utterly clean and boring it'll be amazing.
> >
> >Thanks for keeping on top of this, Jon. I agree, we should not be
> >using unregistered vendor prefixes, e.g., the "THRX" added by
> >44f22bd91e88 ("PCI: Add MCFG quirks for Cavium ThunderX pass2.x host
> >controller"). I'm sorry I merged that without doing the due
> >diligence.
>
> Honestly, it is me who is responsible for this since I submitted the patch.
>
> >
> >I suspect the resolution will be to register "THRX". If that doesn't
> >happen, I'll propose reverting 44f22bd91e88, not because I want to
> >break things, but only because I'm not personally in a position to do
> >anything smarter. So please propose a better solution that fits
> >within the ACPI _HID/_CID model :)
>
> I already submitted the patch to fix this. Please see:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/739042/
Applied, thanks! Glad to have this cleared up!
Bjorn
On 03/21/2017 10:56 AM, David Daney wrote:
> On 03/21/2017 07:17 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 21.03.2017 14:47, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> And for other folks following along with this thread: I'm not just
>>>> picking on Cavium here. I'll be doing the same with *every* ARM server
>>>> SoC company as necessary over the coming months.
>>> Thanks for keeping on top of this, Jon.
You're welcome. I'm pleased (in some sense) that we're starting to see
enough systems shipping that unifying quirks and IDs such that ODMs
can bend metal easily is a problem that we want to solve. I am saddened
that there isn't an ARM swat team with black helicopters swooping in to
ensure zoo avoidance (and I do actually request this every year in my
own budget cycle), but I am very "happy" to serve that role for now.
As I said, this isn't Cavium's fault. They're a victim of their market
success. I'm super excited to see them shipping systems on which we
want to run general purpose Operating Systems. At the same time, as
with *every* other ARM vendor, I will keep my eye out for compliance
concerns and I will act to ensure that these things are flagged.
>>> I agree, we should not be
>>> using unregistered vendor prefixes, e.g., the "THRX" added by
>>> 44f22bd91e88 ("PCI: Add MCFG quirks for Cavium ThunderX pass2.x host
>>> controller"). I'm sorry I merged that without doing the due
>>> diligence.
Oh, it's difficult for you to police everything without having every
possible platform in front of you, with every firmware, and a lot of
time that none of us have :)
>> Honestly, it is me who is responsible for this since I submitted
>> the patch.
You're great Tomasz. You've done awesome stuff over the past few months.
I want to be /very/ clear that none of my pushback is directed at you,
David, or any specific individual. You're doing great. I'm going to
make sure that alignment happens in this industry because I need to
ship a "common core" single binary build OS that supports "ARM
servers". That means every server, from every vendor. Not all are
going to be "certified" to run RHEL, but all servers must be capable
of booting and working with upstream kernels, and running *ANY*
Linux distro, so that customers and users who try an "ARM server"
from a random ODM don't get upset. There will be no zoo. There will
only be "upstream first" driven development and the distros will
learn to consume only from upstream. They won't produce hacked up
nonsense with patches to support platforms that aren't upstream.
> Yes. After all this back and forth, Cavium has decided to deploy
> firmware with "CAVxxx" as _HID.
Great. How about a stable backport for Greg K-H? I want to make sure
that everyone running "upstream" has a chance of booting.
> The deciding factor was that the prefix is already registered and there
> are probably fewer than 10 systems deployed with the experimental and
> erroneous "THRXxxx" value. Neither option (switching the kernel to "CAVxxx",
> or changing the firmware to use "THRXxxx") was without its drawbacks.
Agree. Let's pick a solution and learn for the future. I know you know
this, but for everyone else (especially ARM vendors who follow):
The dirty secret to server is that we have software we ship, and hardware
that ships separately. The software lives for years. It's easier to change
the hardware than software that has already shipped. This is where very
rich and featurefull firmware comes in. The platform is defined by the
firmware, which should provide a fully standard interface that is SET
IN STONE. It's so utterly bulletproof that it's both forward and
backward compatible. Going forward, all of the ARM vendors are going
to have utterly bulletproof server platforms with an amazing level of
joined up cohesion in terms of tracking changes on the software and
hardware side in terms of the platform firmware gluing it together.
It's a dirty secret that x86 teaches us, and we're going to play
exactly the same model out again (this has been the evil plan for
many many years). But to do it right requires that we are very
very careful in connecting dots between the platform pieces.
Thanks,
Jon.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:28:27AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/21/2017 10:56 AM, David Daney wrote:
> > Yes. After all this back and forth, Cavium has decided to deploy
> > firmware with "CAVxxx" as _HID.
>
> Great. How about a stable backport for Greg K-H? I want to make sure
> that everyone running "upstream" has a chance of booting.
The first patch, fee4d813850c ("PCI: Use Cavium assigned hardware ID for
ThunderX host controller"), has a stable tag already.
The second, 1dc94a38af89 ("PCI: Add legacy firmware support for Cavium
ThunderX host controller"), does not, but I can easily add it if needed.
Bjorn
On 03/22/2017 10:48 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:28:27AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 03/21/2017 10:56 AM, David Daney wrote:
>
>>> Yes. After all this back and forth, Cavium has decided to deploy
>>> firmware with "CAVxxx" as _HID.
>>
>> Great. How about a stable backport for Greg K-H? I want to make sure
>> that everyone running "upstream" has a chance of booting.
>
> The first patch, fee4d813850c ("PCI: Use Cavium assigned hardware ID for
> ThunderX host controller"), has a stable tag already.
Thanks - I saw that after I mailed.
> The second, 1dc94a38af89 ("PCI: Add legacy firmware support for Cavium
> ThunderX host controller"), does not, but I can easily add it if needed.
I think that would be ideal. There is firmware out in the wild that
has neither identifier in it (for example, a bunch of folks in the
office bought platforms recently that don't boot upstream kernels).
My guys are used to just taking an upstream kernel and using that,
for development, and I have no intention of having the broader RH
org do any different from what they would do with an x86 box ;)
Jon.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:25:39PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/22/2017 10:48 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:28:27AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> >> On 03/21/2017 10:56 AM, David Daney wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes. After all this back and forth, Cavium has decided to deploy
> >>> firmware with "CAVxxx" as _HID.
> >>
> >> Great. How about a stable backport for Greg K-H? I want to make sure
> >> that everyone running "upstream" has a chance of booting.
> >
> > The first patch, fee4d813850c ("PCI: Use Cavium assigned hardware ID for
> > ThunderX host controller"), has a stable tag already.
>
> Thanks - I saw that after I mailed.
>
> > The second, 1dc94a38af89 ("PCI: Add legacy firmware support for Cavium
> > ThunderX host controller"), does not, but I can easily add it if needed.
>
> I think that would be ideal. There is firmware out in the wild that
> has neither identifier in it (for example, a bunch of folks in the
> office bought platforms recently that don't boot upstream kernels).
> My guys are used to just taking an upstream kernel and using that,
> for development, and I have no intention of having the broader RH
> org do any different from what they would do with an x86 box ;)
I added the same stable tag (v4.10+) to the second patch.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:34:00AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:25:39PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 03/22/2017 10:48 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:28:27AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > >> On 03/21/2017 10:56 AM, David Daney wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Yes. After all this back and forth, Cavium has decided to deploy
> > >>> firmware with "CAVxxx" as _HID.
> > >>
> > >> Great. How about a stable backport for Greg K-H? I want to make sure
> > >> that everyone running "upstream" has a chance of booting.
> > >
> > > The first patch, fee4d813850c ("PCI: Use Cavium assigned hardware ID for
> > > ThunderX host controller"), has a stable tag already.
> >
> > Thanks - I saw that after I mailed.
> >
> > > The second, 1dc94a38af89 ("PCI: Add legacy firmware support for Cavium
> > > ThunderX host controller"), does not, but I can easily add it if needed.
> >
> > I think that would be ideal. There is firmware out in the wild that
> > has neither identifier in it (for example, a bunch of folks in the
> > office bought platforms recently that don't boot upstream kernels).
> > My guys are used to just taking an upstream kernel and using that,
> > for development, and I have no intention of having the broader RH
> > org do any different from what they would do with an x86 box ;)
>
> I added the same stable tag (v4.10+) to the second patch.
I moved these from pci/host-thunder (targeted for v4.12) to for-linus so we
can get these in v4.11.
Thanks :) :) :)
--
Computer Architect | Sent from my 64-bit #ARM Powered phone
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 18:14, Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:34:00AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:25:39PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2017 10:48 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:28:27AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>>> On 03/21/2017 10:56 AM, David Daney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. After all this back and forth, Cavium has decided to deploy
>>>>>> firmware with "CAVxxx" as _HID.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great. How about a stable backport for Greg K-H? I want to make sure
>>>>> that everyone running "upstream" has a chance of booting.
>>>>
>>>> The first patch, fee4d813850c ("PCI: Use Cavium assigned hardware ID for
>>>> ThunderX host controller"), has a stable tag already.
>>>
>>> Thanks - I saw that after I mailed.
>>>
>>>> The second, 1dc94a38af89 ("PCI: Add legacy firmware support for Cavium
>>>> ThunderX host controller"), does not, but I can easily add it if needed.
>>>
>>> I think that would be ideal. There is firmware out in the wild that
>>> has neither identifier in it (for example, a bunch of folks in the
>>> office bought platforms recently that don't boot upstream kernels).
>>> My guys are used to just taking an upstream kernel and using that,
>>> for development, and I have no intention of having the broader RH
>>> org do any different from what they would do with an x86 box ;)
>>
>> I added the same stable tag (v4.10+) to the second patch.
>
> I moved these from pci/host-thunder (targeted for v4.12) to for-linus so we
> can get these in v4.11.
>