On 12/11/2024 4:30 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > Li Ming wrote: > [..] >>> There is a short term fix and a long term fix. The short term fix could >>> be to just delete the warning message, or downgrade it to dev_dbg(), for >>> now since it is more often a false positive than not. The long term fix, >>> and the logic needed to resolve false-positive reports, is to flip the >>> capability discovery until *after* it is clear that there is a >>> downstream endpoint capable of CXL.cachemem. >>> >>> Without an endpoint there is no point in reporting that a potentially >>> CXL capable port is missing cachemem registers. >>> >>> So, if you want to send a patch changing that warning to dev_dbg() for >>> now I would support that. >>> >> I noticed the short term solution been merged, may I know if anyone is >> working on the long term solution? If not, I can work on it. > Hi Ming, > > To my knowledge nobody is working on it, so feel free to take a look. > Just note though that if this gets in someone else's critical path they > could also produce some patches. I.e. typical Linux kernel task > wrangling where the first to post a workable solution usually gets to > drive the discussion. > Hi Dan,
Understand, thanks for your information, I am also willing to review those patches if that happens. Ming
