Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757889Ab1FQBm0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:42:26 -0400
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:50649 "EHLO
	cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755547Ab1FQBmY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:42:24 -0400
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:42:13 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI, APEI, Add APEI _OSC support
Message-ID: <20110617014213.GA30826@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20110614145246.GA17469@srcf.ucam.org>
 <4DF82CBC.5070400@intel.com>
 <20110615121703.GA8638@srcf.ucam.org>
 <4DF950EB.7050400@intel.com>
 <20110616013812.GA32494@srcf.ucam.org>
 <4DF962AE.60204@intel.com>
 <20110616015736.GA32533@srcf.ucam.org>
 <4DFAA665.8070305@intel.com>
 <20110617013442.GA30708@srcf.ucam.org>
 <4DFAB081.6050800@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4DFAB081.6050800@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1430
Lines: 33

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 09:40:17AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 09:34 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If the kernel has been configured with support for the feature then I 
> > think we ought to be able to assume that the kernel will support it at 
> > runtime.
> 
> There may be error during driver initialization.  That is what I am
> concerned.

That's true of any _OSC functionality.

> >> So I think we can do that in 2 steps.  At first, we just enable WHEA
> >> UUID, because that is easier to do.  Then we find a way to implement
> >> "APEI bit" in generic _OSC call.  Do you think that is a good idea?
> > 
> > I'm fine with that, providing that GHES isn't disabled purely because 
> > the WHEA UUID call wasn't successful.
> 
> Because we have not added the code to make generic _OSC call with "APEI
> bit" now, so if WHEA UUID call failed, we have no firmware first mode
> enabled.  So I think it is safe to disable GHES if WHEA UUID call
> failed.  But in another hand, keeping GHES has no harm too.  So I am OK
> to keep GHES if WHEA UUID call failed.

I see your point. But this does need to be fixed in the long run.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/