On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:09:42AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > I was unaware that we blocked mapping persistent as volatile. I was > > working off the assumption that could be flexible mapped similar to... > > er... older, non-cxl hardware... cough. > > You can use it as volatile, but that doesn't mean we allow it in a CFMWS > that says the host PA range is not suitable for persistent. > A BIOS might though I think. > aaaaaaaaaaaaah this helps. Ok, we can repurpose the hardware, but not the CFMWS. Even more pressure on platforms to get it right :P. > > > > Along with the above note, and as mentioned on discord, I think this > > whole section naturally evolves into a library of "Sane configurations" > > and "We promise nothing for `reasons`" configurations. > > :) Snag is that as Dan pointed out on discord we assume this applies > even without the lock. So it is possible to have device and host > hardware combinations where things are forced to be very non-intuitive. > Right, but i think that falls into "We promise nothing, for `reasons`". At the very least it would give us a communication tool that helps bridge the gap between platform, linux, and end-users. Or it'd just makes it all worse, one of the two. ~Gregory
