From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>
To: Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com, keith.busch@intel.com
Cc: baicar.tyler@gmail.com, sbobroff@linux.ibm.com,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shyam.Iyer@dell.com,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lukas@wunner.de, oohall@gmail.com,
Austin.Bolen@dell.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, lenb@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 20:54:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3b18a9fa-7bdd-0fb4-285d-4efb454be50a@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9c9531c7efb846438f03f744b9afc466@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
On 11/19/2018 6:49 PM, Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com wrote:
> On 11/19/2018 02:33 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> However; table assumes governance about for which entities firmware first
>> should be enabled. There is no cross reference to _OSC or permission
>> negotiation like _OST.
>
> Well, from an OSPM perspective, is FFS something that can be enabled or
> disabled? FFS seems to be static to OSPM, which would change the sort of
> assumptions we can reasonably make here.
IMO, it can be enabled/disabled in BIOS. I have seen this implementation before.
If the trigger is the presence of a statically compiled ACPI HEST table (as the
current code does); presence of FFS would be static from OSPM perspective.
BIOS could patch this table or hide it during boot.
If FFS were to be negotiated via _OSC as indirectly implied in this series, then
same BIOS could patch the ACPI table to return different values for the _OSC
return.
>
>
>>>> As I said in my previous email, the right place to talk about this is UEFI
>>>> forum.
>>>
>>> The way I would present the problem to he spec writers is that, although
>>> the spec appears to be consistent, we've seen firmware vendors that made
>>> the wrong assumptions about HEST/_OSC. Instead of describing AER
>>> ownership with _OSC, they attempted to do it with HEST. So we should add
>>> an implementation note, or clarification about this.
>>
>> I agree.
>
> Cool. While the UEFI Secret Society debates, can we figure out if/how
> [patch 1/2] breaks those systems, or is it only [patch 2/2] of this
> series that we suspect?
I went back and looked at both patches. Both of them are removing references to
HEST table. I think both patches are impacted by this discussion.
>
> Alex
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-20 1:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-15 23:16 [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-11-15 23:16 ` [PATCH 1/2] PCI/AER: Do not use APEI/HEST to disable AER services globally Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-11-15 23:16 ` [PATCH 2/2] PCI/AER: Determine AER ownership based on _OSC instead of HEST Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-11-15 23:43 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-16 1:49 ` [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 16:53 ` Tyler Baicar
2018-11-19 16:53 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-19 17:32 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 17:36 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-19 17:42 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 17:41 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-19 17:56 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 18:10 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-19 18:24 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 19:11 ` Alex G.
2018-11-19 19:32 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 20:16 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-19 20:33 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 23:49 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-20 1:54 ` Sinan Kaya [this message]
2018-11-20 20:44 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-20 21:02 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-20 21:42 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-20 22:28 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-20 22:35 ` Alex G.
2018-11-20 21:46 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-20 22:08 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-20 22:36 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-27 18:22 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-27 18:32 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-27 18:46 ` Tyler Baicar
2018-11-16 12:37 ` David Laight
2019-03-05 23:16 ` Bjorn Helgaas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3b18a9fa-7bdd-0fb4-285d-4efb454be50a@kernel.org \
--to=okaya@kernel.org \
--cc=Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com \
--cc=Austin.Bolen@dell.com \
--cc=Shyam.Iyer@dell.com \
--cc=baicar.tyler@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mr.nuke.me@gmail.com \
--cc=oohall@gmail.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sbobroff@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).