* Boaz Harrosh <b...@plexistor.com> wrote:
> On 02/19/2015 12:01 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:15:32AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>>> In fact it was originally "type-6" until ACPI 5
> >>>> claimed that number for official use, so these
> >>>> platforms, with early proof-of-concept nvdimm support,
> >>>> have already gone through one transition to a new
> >>>> number. They need to do the same once an official
> >>>> number for nvdimm support is published.
> >>>>
> >>>> Put another way, these early platforms are already
> >>>> using out-of-tree patches for nvdimm enabling. They
> >>>> can continue to do so, or switch to standard methods
> >>>> when the standard is published.
> >>>
> >>> Not supporting hardware that is widely avaiable (I have
> >>> some, too) is not very user friendly.
> >>
> >> Yes, as I agreed with Ingo, allowing a driver to assume
> >> control of an unknown memory type with a warning or a
> >> kernel taint seems fine.
> >
> > If someone cooks up such a patch I can apply it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ingo
> >
>
> I will submit a new version of my patch-1 with the
> pr_warn.
>
> Or did you already apply my patch-1 and you want one on
> top? What is the URL of your tree please?
New patch please, and please also Cc: everyone who
expressed interest in the thread and who wasn't Cc:-ed to
the original patch.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
