On 2017/8/25 18:37, gengdongjiu wrote:
>>> +
>>> >> +/* From the ACPI 6.1 spec, "18.3.2.9 Hardware Error Notification" */
>>> >> +
>> > It's better to refer to the first spec version of this structure and
>> > same with others you define.
> do you mean which spec version? the definition is aligned with the linux kernel.
What I mean here is that it's better to refer to the ACPI spec version
which introduces Hardware Error Notification first time.
>> >
>>> >> +enum AcpiHestNotifyType {
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_POLLED = 0,
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_EXTERNAL = 1,
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_LOCAL = 2,
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_SCI = 3,
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_NMI = 4,
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_CMCI = 5, /* ACPI 5.0 */
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_MCE = 6, /* ACPI 5.0 */
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_GPIO = 7, /* ACPI 6.0 */
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_SEA = 8, /* ACPI 6.1 */
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_SEI = 9, /* ACPI 6.1 */
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_GSIV = 10, /* ACPI 6.1 */
>>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_RESERVED = 11 /* 11 and greater are reserved */
>> > In ACPI 6.2, 11 is for Software Delegated Exception, is this useful for
>> > your patchset?
> it is usefull, for all the error source, I reserved the space for them.
> Because the space is allocated one time, is not dynamically allocated.
> so I use the ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_RESERVED to specify that there is 11 error source.
>
I mean whether the new type Software Delegated Exception is useful for
RAS. If so, we could add this new type here.
Thanks,
--
Shannon
