Re: [PATCH v9 0/7] Switch Arm SMCCC firmware services to an SMCCC bus
Will Deacon <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.linux-coco,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <anmm6nF6GN-vSRn2@willie-the-truck> |
On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 03:05:08PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Aneesh Kumar K.V <[email protected]> writes: > > > Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 12:02:48PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote: > >>> Changes from v8: > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] > >>> * Rebase onto the arm64 for-next/core branch. > >> > >> Was there a dependency on anything in for-next/core? We normally apply > >> series on their own branch on top of the vanilla kernel (e.g. 7.2-rc3) > >> and merge everything together in for-next/core. We (and many other > >> maintainers) strongly prefer series posted on top of an -rc kernel > >> (typically -rc1 to -rc3) unless there's a dependency on a different > >> branch. Never based on -next or -next like branches (which is what > >> for-next/core is, as the name implies). > >> > > > > The reason is that these two patches create conflicts. Since this series > > involves file movement, resolving those conflicts was not > > straightforward. Therefore, I rebased the series on top of both of the > > following commits: > > > > commit 24f55f511b9e ("virt: arm-cca-guest: use migrate_disable() for attestation token requests") > > commit e62decaf98e7 ("arm64/coco: Add pKVM as a CC platform") > > > > Any chance of getting this picked up for the next merge window? No, we're at -rc7 and you sent this half-way through -rc6. Regression fixes only at this point, I'm afraid. Will