On 03/05/2015 10:56 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]> wrote: >> <> >> Now the ACPI comity, as far as I know, did not yet define a >> standard type for NvDIMM. Also, as far as I know any NvDIMM >> standard will only be defined for DDR4. So DDR3 NvDIMM is >> probably stuck with this none STD type. > > There's no relation between E820 types and DDR technology revisions. >
Yes and no, I mean the DDR4 has extra legs and signals defined for NvDIMM. So DDR3 will always mean different style of NvDIMM. You tell me. Say the standard finally comes out. Will I have a new bios from Intel for my DDR3 system here in the lab that will report the new STD type ? What I meant is that DDR3 is too old for the proposed STD and probably only DDR4 NvDIMMs will be supported in systems. The way the STD defined it. <> >> In this patch I name type-12 "unknown-12". This is because of >> ACPI politics that refuse to reserve type-12 as DDR3-NvDIMM > > It's not "politics". Setting standards takes time and the platforms > in question simply jumped the gun to enable a proof-of-concept. > So ye, but once you have 100,000 devices out there, then the dichotomy between standards-takes-time vs proof-of-concept, becomes politics. This is the definition of politics, when life moves faster than some "body", the "body" stands on its back feet and shoots fire from his head. >> and members keep saying: >> "What if ACPI assigns type-12 for something else in future" >> >> [And I say: Then just don't. Please?] > > Once a standard number is assigned, platform firmwares can update > type-12 to that number. We might consider a compile time override for > these niche/pre-standard systems that can't/won't update, but it's not > clear to me that we even need to go that far. > OK, so I do not understand what you want. Yes or No to this patch? This patch with unknown-12 is for NOW. For systems already running. So we can differentiate between reserved-unknown which might mean type-13 and this here bastard type-12 which we know is NvDIMM but for future sake we do not call by name? Or maybe we should call it NVDIMM-12 ? Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
