On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 11:22 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 14:24 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
>> >> Register the memory devices described in the nfit as libnd 'dimm'
>> >> devices on an nd bus. The kernel assigned device id for dimms is
>> >> dynamic. If userspace needs a more static identifier it should consult
>> >> a provider-specific attribute. In the case where NFIT is the provider,
>> >> the 'nmemX/nfit/handle' or 'nmemX/nfit/serial' attributes may be used
>> >> for this purpose.
>> > :
>> >> +
>> >> +static int nd_acpi_register_dimms(struct acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct nfit_mem *nfit_mem;
>> >> +
>> >> + list_for_each_entry(nfit_mem, &acpi_desc->dimms, list) {
>> >> + struct nd_dimm *nd_dimm;
>> >> + unsigned long flags = 0;
>> >> + u32 nfit_handle;
>> >> +
>> >> + nfit_handle = __to_nfit_memdev(nfit_mem)->nfit_handle;
>> >> + nd_dimm = nd_acpi_dimm_by_handle(acpi_desc, nfit_handle);
>> >> + if (nd_dimm) {
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * If for some reason we find multiple DCRs the
>> >> + * first one wins
>> >> + */
>> >> + dev_err(acpi_desc->dev, "duplicate DCR detected: %s\n",
>> >> + nd_dimm_name(nd_dimm));
>> >> + continue;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + if (nfit_mem->bdw && nfit_mem->memdev_pmem)
>> >> + flags |= NDD_ALIASING;
>> >
>> > Does this check work for a NVDIMM card which has multiple pmem regions
>> > with label info, but does not have any bdw region configured?
>>
>> If you have multiple pmem regions then you don't have aliasing and
>> don't need a label. You'll get an nd_namespace_io per region.
>>
>> > The code assumes that namespace_pmem (NDD_ALIASING) and namespace_blk
>> > have label info. There may be an NVDIMM card with a single blk region
>> > without label info.
>>
>> I'd really like to suggest that labels are only for resolving aliasing
>> and that if you have a BLK-only NVDIMM you'll get an automatic
>> namespace created the same as a PMEM-only. Partitioning is always
>> there to provide sub-divisions of a namespace. The only reason to
>> support multiple BLK-namespaces per-region is to give each a different
>> sector size. I may eventually need to relent on this position, but
>> I'd really like to understand the use case for requiring labels when
>> aliasing is not present as it seems like a waste to me.
>
> By looking at the callers of is_namespace_pmem() and is_namespace_blk(),
> such as nd_namespace_label_update(), I am concerned that the namespace
> types are also used for indicating the presence a label. Is it OK for
> nd_namespace_label_update() to do nothing when there is no aliasing?
>
>> > Instead of using the namespace types to assume the label info, how about
>> > adding a flag to indicate the presence of the label info? This avoids
>> > the separation of namespace_io and namespace_pmem for the same pmem
>> > driver.
>>
>> To what benefit?
>
> Why do they need to be separated? Having alias or not should not make
> the pmem namespace different.
The intent is to maximize the number of devices that can be
immediately attached to nd_pmem and nd_blk without user intervention.
nd_namespace_io is a pmem namespace where the boundaries are 100%
described by the NFIT / parent-region.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
