On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoem...@hpe.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:35:48AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: [..] >> It was a mistake to use _DSM for common root-level functionality, and >> we shouldn't double down on that mistake by allowing unfettered > > As to the moral aspects of ACPI's decision to standardiz the DSM for NVDIMM, > I take no position on whether it was a good thing or a bad thing; but it > is a thing. We need to handle it. I see no particular benefit to > making our own lives more difficult.
We do handle everything we need to. Making future updates move at the same pace as standard ACPI enabing is the goal as well as not adding any momentum to continue abusing _DSM when we should be creating named methods for bus-level generic functionality. As a maintainer of this subsystem I'm fine with the burden of continuing to touch the code as the specification evolves and that stance matches standard Linux practice.