On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:38:39 +0200 Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 01:45:12PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > One of the key bits of feedback we've had on that series is that it > > should be integrated with EDAC. Part of the reason being need to get > > appropriate RAS expert review. > > If you mean me with that, my only question back then was: if you're going to > integrate it somewhere and instead of defining something completely new - you > can simply reuse what's there. That's why I suggested EDAC. Ah fair enough. I'd taken stronger meaning from what you said than you intended. Thanks for the clarification. > > IOW, the question becomes, why should it be a completely new thing and not > part of EDAC? So that particular feedback perhaps doesn't apply here. I still have a concern with things ending up in fwctl that are later generalized and how that process can happen. Jonathan
