On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:51:54AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > > I wonder whether we should just bite the bullet and ask management to > > > > maintain the physical memory map for us, instead of trying to give us > > > > hints. > > > > > > I doubt this simplified things, given the backward compatibility > > > constrains we have. > > > > > > cheers, > > > Gerd > > > > That's exactly what would become simple. > > For backwards compatibility we would leave things alone > > if the new flags for the memory map aren't specified. > > But we'll add a bunch of new code for the new config mode which allows > management to maintain the physical memory map. And we'll expect > management know about a bunch of machine type internals.
Yes we don't want that. I was vaguely thinking some kind of query that reports the required info so management just has to maintain that. > That isn't a > simplification. > > > This would allow people to e.g. allocate phy address > > ranges for things like nvdimm which has been > > problematic in the past. > > Didn't follow nvdimm discussions. If you think we really need that > anyway to solve certain issues, sure, go ahead and I happily adjust this > patch to use the new infrastructure. > > cheers, > Gerd I'd like to gather some feedback from management folk first. -- MST
