From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3586C04EBA for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:49:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D99B213A2 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:49:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=dellteam.com header.i=@dellteam.com header.b="deWliD/Q" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6D99B213A2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=Dellteam.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732174AbeKTKPq (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 05:15:46 -0500 Received: from esa3.dell-outbound.iphmx.com ([68.232.153.94]:46800 "EHLO esa3.dell-outbound.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727583AbeKTKPp (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 05:15:45 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dellteam.com; i=@dellteam.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1542671278; x=1574207278; h=cc:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=NAxAvGot0khMKPE5N+9ISDgf1cKvBtg3TvGfwGYmPkw=; b=deWliD/Qdms4+Jx3aKpIlDD8V1lbnY731uml8qFT2X9YxhFjjkuRJyBm gjFku8jkHXqh65zyis52y0r75Zxi1jkUAgPRIwS3A3n+2jnDrSIN+OR8V mLWFv+HxROirtmJXX4f4I3xXw3U3yYgF146UTDqnCrsertXFXdBmLAc/V E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2GxAQA9S/NbhiWd50NkHAEBAQQBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGBZQKDWBIxjGWNLIF6lVCBZgsBAYRshBI4EgEDAQECAQECAQECEAEBAQo?= =?us-ascii?q?JCwgpL0IBEAGBYiKCZQEBAQECARIoPwULAgEIGB4QVwIEARoagn+BegicHgK?= =?us-ascii?q?BEIlYAQEBgh2KKI4bgRGDEoRLARIBH4VbAosIlGcJBZEaIIdIiTUsl0MCBAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EBQIUgV2BBnFwgz2CJg4JjhxAAYI5iheBH4EfAQE?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2GxAQA9S/NbhiWd50NkHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBZQKDWBIxj?= =?us-ascii?q?GWNLIF6lVCBZgsBAYRshBI4EgEDAQECAQECAQECEAEBAQoJCwgpL0IBEAGBY?= =?us-ascii?q?iKCZQEBAQECARIoPwULAgEIGB4QVwIEARoagn+BegicHgKBEIlYAQEBgh2KK?= =?us-ascii?q?I4bgRGDEoRLARIBH4VbAosIlGcJBZEaIIdIiTUsl0MCBAIEBQIUgV2BBnFwg?= =?us-ascii?q?z2CJg4JjhxAAYI5iheBH4EfAQE?= Received: from mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com) ([67.231.157.37]) by esa3.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 19 Nov 2018 17:47:57 -0600 Received: from pps.filterd (m0089484.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wAJNnagN124279; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:49:36 -0500 Received: from esa1.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com (esa1.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com [68.232.153.201]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nv5ap0fu6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:49:36 -0500 Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Received: from ausxippc101.us.dell.com ([143.166.85.207]) by esa1.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256; 20 Nov 2018 05:49:20 +0600 X-LoopCount0: from 10.166.134.84 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,254,1539666000"; d="scan'208";a="1163380859" From: To: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER Thread-Topic: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER Thread-Index: AQHUfTk2X+FUHiVWnkuZssuLn5DqDg== Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:49:32 +0000 Message-ID: <9c9531c7efb846438f03f744b9afc466@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM> References: <20181115231605.24352-1-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <20181119165318.GB26595@localhost.localdomain> <74f2c527-0890-5e14-5e2d-48934a42dae6@kernel.org> <20181119174127.GE26595@localhost.localdomain> <20181119181051.GA26707@localhost.localdomain> <3f923367-2cc1-c0d6-bca6-bf9a03d1b9ca@gmail.com> <84013a8a-287d-d700-6710-91cc35f507c8@kernel.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.178.128.193] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-11-19_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1811190209 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/19/2018 02:33 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:=0A= > True. I was trying to get it out in a rush. I omitted words.=0A= =0A= Sounds like you'd make an top notch spec writer! :p=0A= =0A= > However; table assumes governance about for which entities firmware first= =0A= > should be enabled. There is no cross reference to _OSC or permission=0A= > negotiation like _OST.=0A= =0A= Well, from an OSPM perspective, is FFS something that can be enabled or =0A= disabled? FFS seems to be static to OSPM, which would change the sort of = =0A= assumptions we can reasonably make here.=0A= =0A= =0A= >>> As I said in my previous email, the right place to talk about this is U= EFI=0A= >>> forum.=0A= >>=0A= >> The way I would present the problem to he spec writers is that, although= =0A= >> the spec appears to be consistent, we've seen firmware vendors that made= =0A= >> the wrong assumptions about HEST/_OSC. Instead of describing AER=0A= >> ownership with _OSC, they attempted to do it with HEST. So we should add= =0A= >> an implementation note, or clarification about this.=0A= > =0A= > I agree.=0A= =0A= Cool. While the UEFI Secret Society debates, can we figure out if/how =0A= [patch 1/2] breaks those systems, or is it only [patch 2/2] of this =0A= series that we suspect?=0A= =0A= Alex=0A=