From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Huang Ying Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI, APEI, Add APEI _OSC support Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:40:17 +0800 Message-ID: <4DFAB081.6050800@intel.com> References: <1306303538-30524-1-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:60422 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755547Ab1FQBkW (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:40:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110617013442.GA30708@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Len Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andi Kleen , "Luck, Tony" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" On 06/17/2011 09:34 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 08:57:09AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: >> On 06/16/2011 09:57 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> Yeah, this is going to be a problem. We have the HEST available at this >>> point so we ought to be able to parse it, though. I'll take a look >>> tomorrow. >> >> We can check the HEST table before _OSC evaluating. But it is much >> harder to check software part, because we have implemented GHES support >> (Generic Hardware Error Source, the handler of firmware first mode >> hardware error notification) as device driver and module. > > 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. >> 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. Best Regards, Huang Ying