Re: [PATCH 0/6] ACPI: New helper function acpi_dev_get_memory_resources() and a new ACPI ID - Greg Kroah-Hartman

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Utkarsh Patel <utkarsh.h.patel@intel.com>,
	rajmohan.mani@intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] ACPI: New helper function acpi_dev_get_memory_resources() and a new ACPI ID
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:33:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yv9m6LSGKXvnnBSY@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yv9ftg2MVx+okmzC@kuha.fi.intel.com>

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 01:02:30PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 09:12:46PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 01:16:23PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The helper function returns all memory resources described for a
> > > device regardless of the ACPI descriptor type (as long as it's
> > > memory), but the first patch introduces new ACPI ID for the IOM
> > > controller on Intel Meteor Lake and also separately modifies the
> > > driver so that it can get the memory resource from Address Space
> > > Resource Descriptor.
> > > 
> > > An alternative would have been to introduce that helper function first
> > > so we would not need to modify the driver when the new ID is added,
> > > but then the helper would also need to be applied to the stable kernel
> > > releases, and that does not feel necessary or appropriate in this
> > > case, at least not IMO.
> > > 
> > > So that's why I'm proposing here that we first add the ID, and only
> > > after that introduce the helper, and only for mainline. That way the
> > > patch introducing the ID is the only that goes to the stable releases.
> > > 
> > > If that's okay, and these don't have any other problems, I assume it's
> > > OK if Rafael takes all of these, including the ID?
> > 
> > I took the id now, for 6.0-final as it seems to be totally independant
> > of the other commits (otherwise you would not have tagged it for the
> > stable tree.)
> > 
> > The remainder should probably be resent and send through the acpi tree.
> 
> Okay. The last patch depends on that ID patch, so Rafael, you need to
> handle that conflict with immutable branch I guess. Or should we just
> skip that patch for now?

You can wait for -rc3 or so which should have that commit in it.

thanks,

greg k-h