Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] Intel MAX10 BMC Secure Update Driver

[Russ Weight]

On 1/19/21 12:49 PM, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 1/5/21 3:08 PM, Russ Weight wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>  .../testing/sysfs-driver-intel-m10-bmc-secure |  61 ++
>>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   2 +
>>  drivers/fpga/Kconfig                          |  11 +
>>  drivers/fpga/Makefile                         |   3 +
>>  drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c           | 543 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h             |  85 +++
> I am having trouble pulling this into my testing branch where i am tracking some other changes to intel-m10-bmc.h
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210114231648.199685-1-russell.h.weight@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1609999628-12748-3-git-send-email-yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> so I am wondering if it makes sense to split the intel-m10-bmc.h change out of this patchset and sent as a single patch to mfd subsystem ?  The change is a bunch of #defines that don't do anything on their own, but will conflict with other similar additions to the h file.
If I rebase my working branch onto the latest linux-next, I don't see any issues. But if I apply the patches to the latest linux-next (git am), then I do. Clearly I need to fix up this patch and resend. If there are no objections, I'll split this patch out as an individual patch for the next submission.

- Russ
>
> Tom
>
>>  6 files changed, 705 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-intel-m10-bmc-secure
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c
>>