[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110617014213.GA30826@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:42:13 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI, APEI, Add APEI _OSC support
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 09:40:17AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 09:34 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If the kernel has been configured with support for the feature then I
> > think we ought to be able to assume that the kernel will support it at
> > runtime.
>
> There may be error during driver initialization. That is what I am
> concerned.
That's true of any _OSC functionality.
> >> So I think we can do that in 2 steps. At first, we just enable WHEA
> >> UUID, because that is easier to do. Then we find a way to implement
> >> "APEI bit" in generic _OSC call. Do you think that is a good idea?
> >
> > I'm fine with that, providing that GHES isn't disabled purely because
> > the WHEA UUID call wasn't successful.
>
> Because we have not added the code to make generic _OSC call with "APEI
> bit" now, so if WHEA UUID call failed, we have no firmware first mode
> enabled. So I think it is safe to disable GHES if WHEA UUID call
> failed. But in another hand, keeping GHES has no harm too. So I am OK
> to keep GHES if WHEA UUID call failed.
I see your point. But this does need to be fixed in the long run.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists