From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boaz Harrosh Subject: Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH v2] pmem: Initial version of persistent memory driver Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:27:27 +0300 Message-ID: <541E99FF.9050607@plexistor.com> References: <1409173922-7484-1-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <1409173922-7484-2-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <540F2977.7010006@plexistor.com> <541050E5.60502@gmail.com> <54108ECA.6090200@plexistor.com> <54117D3A.3010305@plexistor.com> <5415797A.7000700@plexistor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Boaz Harrosh , Ross Zwisler , Jens Axboe , Matthew Wilcox , linux-fsdevel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org To: Dan Williams , Jeff Moyer Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 09/19/2014 07:27 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > before adding any new device > discovery capabilities to pmem. > I lost you? what "new device discovery capabilities" do you see in Ross's or my code to pmem? Actually my point is that I hope there will never be any. That the discovery should be elsewhere in an ARCH/driver LLD and pmem stays generic. I feel we are not disagreeing, just not communicating. Please explain again, sorry for not understanding. What in the code I sent, you do not like? What in the code is dependent on UEFI organization's paper. That might need to change? Again sorry for being slow. please explain again? Thanks Boaz