Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190213150810.32750-1-rajneesh.bhardwaj@linux.intel.com>
 <CAHp75VeTwjbdjAXPZfB5B7oataarjG0epV1SzokdYnCj8xcPhA@mail.gmail.com> <63bb8cc7-4feb-f69c-33be-ba5308c441d1@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <63bb8cc7-4feb-f69c-33be-ba5308c441d1@linux.intel.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:28:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdH8G+FfvznZePEG1F5A1Eyh8XF=a-MqpNooLWnBbP+gA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] ICL support and other enhancements for PMC Core
To:     "Bhardwaj, Rajneesh" <rajneesh.bhardwaj@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:50 PM Bhardwaj, Rajneesh
<rajneesh.bhardwaj@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 13-Feb-19 9:03 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:08 PM Rajneesh Bhardwaj
> > <rajneesh.bhardwaj@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> This patch series provides Icelake support for PMC Core driver and while
> >> doing so it introduces the Icelake Mobile to intel-family.h as per the
> >> CPUID from below Coreboot link
> >> https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/blob/5ebcea3aaaa3cd358bc5bccaa156b13a6ef25df6/src/soc/intel/common/block/include/intelblocks/mp_init.h
> >> and provides some fixes and enhancements to the driver.
> > It's not applicable to my tree.
>
> Hi Andy,  I could apply and test in on latest upstream so i think its
> probably because you have applied 5 patches from v1 on your tree.
> https://github.com/dvhart/linux-pdx86/commits/for-next

You need to use latest tip of the subsystem tree always.

> I sent the whole series again since
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10791893 referred to a wrong commit
> for Fixes:. If you want to address that by rebasing then can you please
> just consider patches 6-10.

We don't do rebasing for published changes. Only in rear cases when
otherwise would be worse.
Darren didn't respond to my question what he thinks about this case,
but at least it's not related to the code itself which, in my opinion,
decreases a severity.

> Please let me know if there is any other issue?


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko