>-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> >Sent: 03 January 2025 15:50 >To: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>; Borislav Petkov ><bp@xxxxxxxxx> >Cc: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-edac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >cxl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; linux- >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx; rafael@xxxxxxxxxx; >lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx; dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx; >dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx; alison.schofield@xxxxxxxxx; vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx; >ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx; david@xxxxxxxxxx; Vilas.Sridharan@xxxxxxx; >leo.duran@xxxxxxx; Yazen.Ghannam@xxxxxxx; rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx; >jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx; Jon.Grimm@xxxxxxx; dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx; james.morse@xxxxxxx; jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx; >somasundaram.a@xxxxxxx; erdemaktas@xxxxxxxxxx; pgonda@xxxxxxxxxx; >duenwen@xxxxxxxxxx; gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx; >wschwartz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dferguson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >wbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; nifan.cxl@xxxxxxxxx; tanxiaofei ><tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx>; Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Roberto >Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>; kangkang.shen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; >wanghuiqiang <wanghuiqiang@xxxxxxxxxx>; Linuxarm ><linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 00/18] EDAC: Scrub: introduce generic EDAC RAS >control feature driver + CXL/ACPI-RAS2 drivers > > > >On 1/3/25 6:02 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:41:45 +0100 >> Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 06:03:57PM +0000, shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> drivers/edac/Makefile | 1 + >>>> drivers/edac/ecs.c | 207 +++ >>>> drivers/edac/edac_device.c | 183 ++ >>>> drivers/edac/mem_repair.c | 492 +++++ >>>> drivers/edac/scrub.c | 209 +++ >>>> drivers/ras/Kconfig | 10 + >>>> drivers/ras/Makefile | 1 + >>>> drivers/ras/acpi_ras2.c | 385 ++++ >>>> include/acpi/ras2_acpi.h | 45 + >>>> include/cxl/features.h | 48 + >>>> include/cxl/mailbox.h | 45 +- >>>> include/linux/edac.h | 238 +++ >>>> include/uapi/linux/cxl_mem.h | 3 + >>> >>> So what's the plan here? Am I supposed to merge the EDAC/RAS bits >>> through the RAS tree and then give folks an immutable branch or how >>> do we want to proceed here? >>> >> >> Dave Jiang / Rafael, what would work best for the two of you? >> >> To me Boris' suggestion makes sense, particularly as that avoids the >> complexity of CXL get/set features being in multiple series. >> >> I think the split that would make sense is: >> >> EDAC immutable branch for: >> 1: EDAC: Add support for EDAC device features control >> 2: Add scrub control feature >> 3: EDAC: Add ECS control feature >> 15: EDAC: Add memory repair control feature >> >> ACPI merges EDAC immutable + >> 13: ACPI:RAS2: Add ACPI RAS2 driver >> 14: ras: mem: Add memory ACPI RAS2 driver >> >> CXL merges EDAC immutable + >> 4: cxl: Refactor user ioctl command path from mds to mailbox >> 5: cxl: Add Get Supported Features command for kernel usage >> 6: cxl/mbox: Add GET_FEATURE mailbox command >> 7: cxl: Add Get Feature command support for user submission >> 8: cxl/mbox: Add SET_FEATURE mailbox command >> 9: cxl: Add Set Feature command support for user submission >> 10: cxl: Add UUIDs for the CXL RAS features >> 11: cxl/memfeature: Add CXL memory device patrol scrub control >> feature >> 12: cxl/memfeature: Add CXL memory device ECS control feature >> 16: cxl/mbox: Add support for PERFORM_MAINTENANCE mailbox command >> 17: cxl/memfeature: Add CXL memory device soft PPR control feature >> 18: cxl/memfeature: Add CXL memory device memory sparing control >> feature > >That works for me. > >DJ > >> >> That does mean that the actual drivers/edac/ specific drivers land via >> the ACPI and CXL trees only, but without another layer of immutable >> branches we can't avoid that. Might cause merge conflicts in >> Kconfig/Makefiles but otherwise shouldn't be too bad. >> >> There is going to be some noise in documentation as examples are added >> to the docs with the actual drivers (whereas generic docs are >> introduced with the infrastructure). I think that will work out though. >> Shiju, could you spin this ordering up and check it all works >> (incorporating Dave's updates to the GET / SET feature)? Rebased, reordered and tested fine. Waiting for some information before sharing the updated patches. Thanks, Shiju >> > Thanks, >> >> Jonathan >
