Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932683AbdGXQon (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:44:43 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:33880 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753475AbdGXQoe (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:44:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:44:00 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: "Kani, Toshimitsu" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mchehab@kernel.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com" , "tony.luck@intel.com" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac Message-ID: <20170724164400.GB18184@nazgul.tnic> References: <1500654661.2042.49.camel@hpe.com> <20170721140131.40079805@vento.lan> <20170721172344.GA11316@nazgul.tnic> <1500661773.2042.53.camel@hpe.com> <20170722062853.GA2050@nazgul.tnic> <1500907209.2042.55.camel@hpe.com> <20170724150432.GA31295@nazgul.tnic> <1500909372.2042.58.camel@hpe.com> <20170724153716.GA17708@nazgul.tnic> <20170724130402.0f05c0ba@vento.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170724130402.0f05c0ba@vento.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1133 Lines: 33 On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 01:04:13PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > If the Kernel force those users to use ghes_edac by default, > they they won't see the error counts anymore, but, instead, > hardware reports that the memories need to be replaced. This is exactly why I'm trying to load ghes_edac only on those platforms which would really want it. > So, the right solution would be to keep hardware first, but > providing a modprobe parameter to let them switch to software > first. That's exactly the issue: if we make it spec-conform and adhere to FF setting, then it'll be clean. BUT(!), we will force ghes_edac on those platforms which potentially are using the platform-specific drivers until now. Not good. If we do the whitelisting, then we're stuck with maintaining a yucky whitelist and have to keep updating ghes_edac with it. So we're basically between a rock and a hard place. If I had to choose *right* *now*, I'd probably lean slightly towards the whitelist as it won't break existing users. A big grumpfy-grumbly hmmm. :-\ -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. --