Em Mon, 13 Jan 2025 15:36:39 +0000 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > > 5. CXL features driver supporting ECS control feature. > > > 6. ACPI RAS2 driver adds OS interface for RAS2 communication through > > > PCC mailbox and extracts ACPI RAS2 feature table (RAS2) and > > > create platform device for the RAS memory features, which binds > > > to the memory ACPI RAS2 driver. > > > 7. Memory ACPI RAS2 driver gets the PCC subspace for communicating > > > with the ACPI compliant platform supports ACPI RAS2. Add callback > > > functions and registers with EDAC device to support user to > > > control the HW patrol scrubbers exposed to the kernel via the > > > ACPI RAS2 table. > > > 8. Support for CXL maintenance mailbox command, which is used by > > > CXL device memory repair feature. > > > 9. CXL features driver supporting PPR control feature. > > > 10. CXL features driver supporting memory sparing control feature. > > > Note: There are other PPR, memory sparing drivers to come. > > > > The text above should be inside Documentation, and not on patch 0. > > > > A big description like that makes hard to review this series. It is > > also easier to review the text after having it parsed by kernel doc > > build specially for summary tables like the "Comparison of scrubbing > > features", which deserves ReST links processed by Sphinx to the > > corresponding definitions of the terms that are be compared there. > > Whilst I fully agree that having a huge cover letter makes for a burden > for any reviewer coming to the series, this is here at specific request > of reviewers. Ok, then. Yet, even for them it would be very hard to track what changes from v19 to the next versions if you change something at patch 00. > We can look at keeping more of it in documentation though > it's a bit white paper like in comparison with what I'd normally expect > to see in kernel documentation. Personally, I like comprehensive documentation at the Kernel. > > > > > Open Questions based on feedbacks from the community: > > > 1. Leo: Standardize unit for scrub rate, for example ACPI RAS2 does not define > > > unit for the scrub rate. RAS2 clarification needed. > > > > I noticed the same when reviewing a patch series for rasdaemon. Ideally, > > ACPI requires an errata defining what units are expected for scrub rate. > > There is a code first ACPI ECN that indeed adds units. That is accepted > for next ACPI specification release. > > Seems the tianocore bugzilla is unhelpfully down for a migration > but it should be id 1013 at bugzilla.tianocore.com > > That adds a detailed description of what the scrub rate settings mean but > we may well still have older platforms where the scaling is arbitrary. > The units defined are sufficient to map to whatever presentation we like. > > > While ACPI doesn't define it, better to not add support for it - or be > > conservative using a low granularity for it (like using minutes instead > > of hours). > > I don't mind changing this, though for systems we are aware of default scrub > is typically once or twice in 24 hours. Yes, I noticed that we're using seconds after reading other patches. It sounds OK to me to keep it as-is. It is really unlikely that we would ever have scrubbing finishing in less than a second. Thanks, Mauro
