Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932289AbdGXR5g convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:57:36 -0400 Received: from ec2-52-27-115-49.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com ([52.27.115.49]:50378 "EHLO osg.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753142AbdGXR4R (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:56:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:56:06 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: "Kani, Toshimitsu" Cc: "bp@alien8.de" , "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: <20170724145606.3686ba39@vento.lan> In-Reply-To: <1500911226.2042.60.camel@hpe.com> References: <1500650732.2042.45.camel@hpe.com> <20170721124401.5f94aba9@vento.lan> <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> <1500911226.2042.60.camel@hpe.com> Organization: Samsung X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1354 Lines: 40 Em Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:56:27 +0000 "Kani, Toshimitsu" escreveu: > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 17:37 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 03:25:34PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > : > > > > > We've been providing this model for many years now. > > > > Dude, relax, I'm only trying to point out to you that there are > > customers who want to see *every* error and thus track how their > > hardware behaves. And that for those customers it is probably worth > > considering exposing that info and providing a switch to disable that > > dumbing of the RAS functionality in the BIOS so that people can > > decide for themselves. That's all. > > Yes, Mauro has already pointed this out. As I replied to him, we do > have a separate series of platforms that do not have built-in RAS, and > report all errors.  Such customers can simply choose them. They do not > need to pay for built-in RAS. That's probably too late for me as I received a new HP machine we bought just last week, but for the next time I would need to get a new hardware, what would be the non-RAS equivalent to a ML 350 G9 tower-mounted machine with two Xeon v4 CPUs and iLO? Regards, Mauro > > The model w/ built-in RAS provides warranty & full support. As I said, > it's a different model. > > Thanks, > -Toshi Thanks, Mauro