From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B24C777A03; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710234505; cv=none; b=UhB0S+3rxJapWGT8lKyEi1kJv0MXQKXtPoJ3qnZ0oUp5WwjCeeCuLiObz2C6H9H6gJEtY62kEVdUNRw0cd6Odylc3AasEMqHSD1lcDp32MuB1cUj03uXP0/jOv8lkwLttqUIZGOaWtPA3uSDMWhWxE4G9rZBwGIIB8tDVks5nC4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710234505; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Hovp2SpFqNAcSQbRYkflVVphrfZ4KQbQv0e1t94NEC0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Og3ofUJiHBKHbBd2QCkAu77mSuZdRSED7bwpLatCd9I/jKJh3Oy4tAtvxdj3Aug7oZ7zjV2VWav+hWSssDvDphM2pqJq02YNymar1Fkx06xs0MS6GGyUqwUe6wrsAt2Yhauoub/ouECEdWiTQBB86vCz2KTNazUQYggUUCB1b6g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=U/TpW1HD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="U/TpW1HD" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1710234504; x=1741770504; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hovp2SpFqNAcSQbRYkflVVphrfZ4KQbQv0e1t94NEC0=; b=U/TpW1HDb/0KQmZcGQTbeQvhCuupM+LSuHWhTu3vc142D8TX6g7Ysetw 9bJzz80968XNoSfKDdeXHMICWAn2I368dZLdrojNJpmUpFNekSFpVKIdA a/U7O6OH1M18LbMzUZx25LI1ujeVvgI2BKPlotyewcfFwD/nSTt0OgVmh BfcbUShVMXmriPA8QCpbulXk+HO7DzPv499oMk+fzfuEdcT1mFi9Oju4Z dytCvQMEeFQkC/3MvYWjitEnR/L+w9QD+p9CpGLlkJJ21pp2+0pQL8EBq +IGe9lRytGgXkqQuPU+ZMdxi/5k7SWkcWaDLaz5ITV1QFMYoksnuNLZdj w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11010"; a="4789521" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,119,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="4789521" Received: from orviesa007.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.147]) by fmvoesa113.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Mar 2024 02:08:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,119,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="11925428" Received: from mtkaczyk-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.98.108]) by orviesa007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Mar 2024 02:08:20 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:08:16 +0100 From: Mariusz Tkaczyk To: Stuart Hayes , Dan Williams Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, Lukas Wunner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI/NPEM: Add Native PCIe Enclosure Management support Message-ID: <20240312100816.000071ec@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20240311104750.00000c24@linux.intel.com> <20240311221337.GA819923@bhelgaas> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:30:06 -0500 Stuart Hayes wrote: > > > No, Linux doesn't support _DSM. It was proposed in previous > > > iterations by Stuart but I dropped it. We decided that it need to be > > > strongly rebuild because "pci/pcie" is not right place for ACPI code > > > so we cannot register _DSM driver instead of NPEM as it was proposed > > > and I don't have _DSM capable hardware to test it. > > > > I'm not sure I understand why pci/pcie isn't the right place for ACPI code-- > there are other _DSMs used in PCI code already, and this _DSM is defined > in a PCI ECN. I looked into internal review history and I found out that I dropped it after discussion with Dan Williams: > After review and discussion with Dan _DSM extension is dropped. Unfortunately, I don't remember what exactly he suggested, I just remembered conclusion that it needs to be reworked and I decided to drop it. Maybe, I didn't understand him correctly. Dan, could you take a look? Do you remember something? Thanks, Mariusz