> If a platform supports einj v2, then the einj directory wont be needed, as per spec, > if a non-zero Error Type value is set by EINJV2_SET_ERROR_TYPE, then any Error Type > value set by (einj case) SET_ERROR_TYPE_WITH_ADDRESS and/or SET_ERROR_TYPE will be > ignored. So based on einjv2 is supported or not, we can have either einjv2 or einj > directory with the related params files in it respectively. > Kindly let us know your thoughts. Piyush, There are a lot of validation tests built on top of the EINJ v1 Linux interface and interest in keeping them working rather than forcing a giant "change everything" when the first EINJ V2 system arrives. BIOS team here thinks that the EINJ V2 spec change is (or can be) incremental. Platform firmware can choose to continue supporting EINJ V1 while also providing EINJ V2 actions. So Linux should be prepared to handle: 1) Legacy systems with just the V1 interface. 2) Incremental systems that have both V1 and V2 interfaces. 3) Future looking systems that only have the V2 interface. -Tony
