On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> > wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c >> index 11cc7d54ec3f..d38b53a7e9b2 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c >> @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ static void __init e820_print_type(u32 type) >> case E820_UNUSABLE: >> printk(KERN_CONT "unusable"); >> break; >> + case E820_PMEM: >> case E820_PRAM: >> printk(KERN_CONT "persistent (type %u)", type); >> break; > > I'd kind of like to make it more clear what's going on here. It > doesn't help that the spec chose poor names. > > How about "NVDIMM physical aperture" for E820_PMEM and "legacy > persistent RAM" for E820_PRAM?
The term "aperture" to me implies this BLK (mmio-windowed) mode of accessing persistent media that the NFIT specification introduces. In fact, those ranges are mapped E820_RESERVED. E820_PMEM really is a memory range that happens to be persistent. > Otherwise this looks generaly sensible, although I don't really > understand why e820_type_to_string and e820_print_type are different. e820_type_to_string() appears in /proc/iomem and seems to afford being more descriptive than e820_print_type() that just scrolls by in dmesg, but I'm just guessing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
