* Boaz Harrosh <boaz(a)plexistor.com> wrote:
On 02/19/2015 12:01 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dan Williams <dan.j.williams(a)intel.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch(a)infradead.org>
>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:15:32AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>> In fact it was originally "type-6" until ACPI 5
>>>> claimed that number for official use, so these
>>>> platforms, with early proof-of-concept nvdimm support,
>>>> have already gone through one transition to a new
>>>> number. They need to do the same once an official
>>>> number for nvdimm support is published.
>>>> Put another way, these early platforms are already
>>>> using out-of-tree patches for nvdimm enabling. They
>>>> can continue to do so, or switch to standard methods
>>>> when the standard is published.
>>> Not supporting hardware that is widely avaiable (I have
>>> some, too) is not very user friendly.
>> Yes, as I agreed with Ingo, allowing a driver to assume
>> control of an unknown memory type with a warning or a
>> kernel taint seems fine.
> If someone cooks up such a patch I can apply it.
I will submit a new version of my patch-1 with the
Or did you already apply my patch-1 and you want one on
top? What is the URL of your tree please?
New patch please, and please also Cc: everyone who
expressed interest in the thread and who wasn't Cc:-ed to
the original patch.