[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8d332852-9c54-95e0-58c7-72939f347aa6@jonmasters.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 01:05:56 -0500
From: Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>
To: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
"Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities
On 11/11/20 12:43 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> + case CXL_CAPABILITIES_CAP_ID_SECONDARY_MAILBOX:
> + dev_dbg(&cxlm->pdev->dev,
> + "found UNSUPPORTED Secondary Mailbox capability\n");
Per spec, the secondary mailbox is intended for use by platform
firmware, so Linux should never be using it anyway. Maybe that message
is slightly misleading?
Jon.
P.S. Related - I've severe doubts about the mailbox approach being
proposed by CXL and have begun to push back through the spec org.
--
Computer Architect
Powered by blists - more mailing lists