On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:20:44PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> I agree that 'osc_sb_apei_support_acked' should be checked when
> enabling ghes_edac. I do not know the details of existing issues, but
> it sounds unlikely that this will address all of them since bugs can be
> everywhere.
No, see below.
> For instance, ghes_edac relies on DMI/SMBIOS info, unlike
> other EDAC drivers, which can be buggy regardless of this _OSC info.
That's the problem with firmware. You can't really fix it and it is
buggy as hell.
> I agree that making ghes_edac as a normal module is a good thing, but I
> do not think it's going to solve this issue.
Of course it will - if the firmware says it wants to look at the errors
first, then it gets to do so. This is the whole handling of hardware
errors in the firmware deal. I admit, sometimes it makes sense because
the firmware has the most intimate knowledge of the platform and, in
a perfect world, we won't ever need to have platform-specific EDAC
drivers.
But, we don't live in a perfect world. And the vendor execution of the
whole firmware-error-handling deal is an abomination at best.
So, if we realize that the firmware is buggy, we can use a platform list
to blacklist it (^hint hint^) and have a parameter to disable ghes_edac
from loading.
But we'll deal with that when we get to cross that bridge. Right now,
I'd like to do the loading spec-conform and not fiddle with white-,
black-, or any-other-color lists.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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
