Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:19:35 +0200 | From | Boaz Harrosh <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |