Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] ICL support and other enhancements for PMC Core

[Bhardwaj, Rajneesh]

On 13-Feb-19 10:58 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:50 PM Bhardwaj, Rajneesh
> <rajneesh.bhardwaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 13-Feb-19 9:03 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:08 PM Rajneesh Bhardwaj
> > > <rajneesh.bhardwaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

Ok.

> > 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.

Thanks Andy. So if i understand correctly, you are suggesting that i 
should ignore those patches that made to "for-next" branch already?

So should i just send a v3 comprising of remaining 5 patches and of 
course, addressing recent review comments?

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