Message ID | cover.1554382869.git.puwen@hygon.cn (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Add support for Hygon Dhyana Family 18h processor | expand |
On 2019/4/4 22:08, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > I am not sure why I end up to be CCed on the cover letter when I am not CCed on > the rest of series. The patch 01/15 of the series is CCed to you. :)
On 04/04/2019 17:47, Pu Wen wrote: > On 2019/4/4 22:08, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am not sure why I end up to be CCed on the cover letter when I am not CCed on >> the rest of series. > > The patch 01/15 of the series is CCed to you. :) I did notice it afterwards. But the code is only x86 specific... It looks like xen/lib/x86 was not falling under the x86 maintainership. I have sent a patch to avoid the "REST" maintainers to be CCed on it. Cheers,
On 04/04/2019 14:44, Pu Wen wrote: > This patch series have been applied and tested successfully on Hygon > Dhyana processor, also been tested on AMD EPYC (family 17h) processor. > It works fine and makes no harm to the existing code. Hello, Sorry for the delay. I've rebased the patches over my CPUID work, and pushed the ones which still apply cleanly to staging. However, some don't apply cleanly any more, so I left those alone. Please could you check the current staging build (and in particular, that I didn't accidentally break anything with the rebase), and rebase the remainder of the series onto staging. Thanks, ~Andrew
On 2019/6/7 0:31, Andrew Cooper wrote: > I've rebased the patches over my CPUID work, and pushed the ones which > still apply cleanly to staging. However, some don't apply cleanly any Thanks a lot. > more, so I left those alone. > > Please could you check the current staging build (and in particular, > that I didn't accidentally break anything with the rebase), and rebase Yes, the current staging build is OK and works on Hygon platform. I'll check the functionalities more carefully. > the remainder of the series onto staging. I'll do this later on. -- Regards, Pu Wen
On 2019/6/7 0:31, Andrew Cooper wrote: > I've rebased the patches over my CPUID work, and pushed the ones which > still apply cleanly to staging. However, some don't apply cleanly any > more, so I left those alone. > > Please could you check the current staging build (and in particular, > that I didn't accidentally break anything with the rebase), and rebase > the remainder of the series onto staging. I rebased the patches x86/acpi and x86/pv over 0cd07414 "x86/cpu: Renumber X86_VENDOR_* to form a bitmap", and sent them out with version v6. I dropped the patch x86/iommu for Hygon because it's no needed any more since the commit 1b3cc800 "x86/IOMMU: introduce init-ops structure" removed the vendor check. I still hold Jan's Acked-by tags however the code is changed. Are the tags still valid? Thx. -- Regards, Pu Wen
On 12/06/2019 16:10, Pu Wen wrote: > On 2019/6/7 0:31, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> I've rebased the patches over my CPUID work, and pushed the ones which >> still apply cleanly to staging. However, some don't apply cleanly any >> more, so I left those alone. >> >> Please could you check the current staging build (and in particular, >> that I didn't accidentally break anything with the rebase), and rebase >> the remainder of the series onto staging. > > I rebased the patches x86/acpi and x86/pv over 0cd07414 "x86/cpu: > Renumber X86_VENDOR_* to form a bitmap", and sent them out with version > v6. I dropped the patch x86/iommu for Hygon because it's no needed any > more since the commit 1b3cc800 "x86/IOMMU: introduce init-ops structure" > removed the vendor check. > > I still hold Jan's Acked-by tags however the code is changed. Are the > tags still valid? Yes. The tags were still valid, because you're not fundamentally changing the patch from how it was before. I've committed the patches now. ~Andrew