On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:35:51PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> ghes_edac instantiates an mci as a pseudo device representing a GHES
> error source. Each error source associates with all DIMMs, and may
> report errors independently. As ghes_edac is an GHES error-reporting
> wrapper to edac, this abstraction makes sense.
Bullshit.
An MCI is a memory controller descriptor. That doesn't fit the GHES
platform devices that get probed. GHES platform device != MCI. How many
times do I need to say this for it to get through to you?
> I do not see a problem in having counters for each GHES error source.
And the error counters of that "simulated" mci get incremented depending
on which pointer gets passed in from GHES? More bullshit.
> This is just statistics info, and ghes_edac does not expect any OS
> action from the counters.
So let me know if you don't want to do it and rather would prefer to
pointlessly debate. I certainly don't want to waste my time debating.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the 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
