lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] e820: Add the unknown-12 Memory type (DDR3-NvDIMM)
On 03/05/2015 10:56 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com> wrote:
>>
<>
>> Now the ACPI comity, as far as I know, did not yet define a
>> standard type for NvDIMM. Also, as far as I know any NvDIMM
>> standard will only be defined for DDR4. So DDR3 NvDIMM is
>> probably stuck with this none STD type.
>
> There's no relation between E820 types and DDR technology revisions.
>

Yes and no, I mean the DDR4 has extra legs and signals defined
for NvDIMM. So DDR3 will always mean different style of NvDIMM.

You tell me. Say the standard finally comes out. Will I have a
new bios from Intel for my DDR3 system here in the lab that will
report the new STD type ?

What I meant is that DDR3 is too old for the proposed STD and probably
only DDR4 NvDIMMs will be supported in systems. The way the STD defined
it.

<>
>> In this patch I name type-12 "unknown-12". This is because of
>> ACPI politics that refuse to reserve type-12 as DDR3-NvDIMM
>
> It's not "politics". Setting standards takes time and the platforms
> in question simply jumped the gun to enable a proof-of-concept.
>

So ye, but once you have 100,000 devices out there, then the dichotomy
between standards-takes-time vs proof-of-concept, becomes politics.

This is the definition of politics, when life moves faster than some
"body", the "body" stands on its back feet and shoots fire from
his head.

>> and members keep saying:
>> "What if ACPI assigns type-12 for something else in future"
>>
>> [And I say: Then just don't. Please?]
>
> Once a standard number is assigned, platform firmwares can update
> type-12 to that number. We might consider a compile time override for
> these niche/pre-standard systems that can't/won't update, but it's not
> clear to me that we even need to go that far.
>

OK, so I do not understand what you want. Yes or No to this patch?

This patch with unknown-12 is for NOW. For systems already running.

So we can differentiate between reserved-unknown which might mean
type-13 and this here bastard type-12 which we know is NvDIMM but
for future sake we do not call by name?

Or maybe we should call it NVDIMM-12 ?

Thanks
Boaz



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-09 12:41    [W:0.145 / U:1.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site