On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 20:18:12 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, Jiaqi Yan wrote: > > > > > 1. I am not aware of any chip/platform hardware that implemented the > > > > hw ps part defined in ACPI RASF/RAS2 spec. So I am curious what the > > > > RAS experts from different hardware vendors think about this. For > > > > example, Tony and Dave from Intel, Jon and Vilas from AMD. Is there > > > > any hardware platform (if allowed to disclose) that implemented ACPI > > > > RASF/RAS2? If so, will vendors continue to support the control of > > > > patrol scrubber using the ACPI spec? If not (as Tony said in [1], will > > > > the vendor consider starting some future platform? > > > > > > > > If we are unlikely to get the vendor support, creating this ACPI > > > > specific sysfs API (and the driver implementations) in Linux seems to > > > > have limited meaning. > > > > > > There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem here. Until there is > > > reasonable support in kernel (or it looks like there will be), > > > BIOS teams push back on a requirement to add the tables. > > > I'd encourage no one to bother with RASF - RAS2 is much less > > > ambiguous. > > > > Here mainly to re-ping folks from Intel (Tony and Dave) and AMD (Jon > > and Vilas) for your opinion on RAS2. > > > > We'll need to know from vendors, ideally at minimum from both Intel and > AMD, whether RAS2 is the long-term vision here. Nothing is set in stone, > of course, but deciding whether RAS2 is the standard that we should be > rallying around will help to guide future development including in the > kernel. > > If RAS2 is insufficient for future use cases or we would need to support > multiple implementations in the kernel for configuring the patrol scrubber > depending on vendor, that's great feedback to have. > > I'd much rather focus on implementing something in the kernel that we have > some clarity about the vendors supporting, especially when it comes with > user visible interfaces, as opposed to something that may not be used long > term. I think that's a fair ask and that vendor feedback is required > here? Agreed and happy to have feedback from Intel and AMD + all the other CPU vendors who make use of ACPI + all the OEMs who add stuff well beyond what Intel and AMD tell them to :) I'll just note a lot of the ACPI support in the kernel covers stuff not used on mainstream x86 platforms because they are doing something custom and we didn't want 2 + X custom implementations... Some other interfaces for scrub control (beyond existing embedded ones) will surface in the next few months where RAS2 is not appropriate. Jonathan
