On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 15:53:14 -0600 > Ross Zwisler <ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > Add a device command line option to allow the user to control the Platform > > Capabilities Structure in the virtualized NFIT. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > docs/nvdimm.txt | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > hw/acpi/nvdimm.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > hw/mem/nvdimm.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/hw/mem/nvdimm.h | 6 ++++++ > > 4 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/docs/nvdimm.txt b/docs/nvdimm.txt > > index e903d8bb09..13a2c15b70 100644 > > --- a/docs/nvdimm.txt > > +++ b/docs/nvdimm.txt > > @@ -153,3 +153,25 @@ guest NVDIMM region mapping structure. This unarmed > > flag indicates > > guest software that this vNVDIMM device contains a region that cannot > > accept persistent writes. In result, for example, the guest Linux > > NVDIMM driver, marks such vNVDIMM device as read-only. > > + > > +Platform Capabilities > > +--------------------- > > + > > +ACPI 6.2 Errata A added support for a new Platform Capabilities Structure > > +which allows the platform to communicate what features it supports related > > to > > +NVDIMM data durability. Users can provide a capabilities value to a guest > > via > > +the optional "cap" device command line option: > > + > > + -device nvdimm,id=nvdimm1,memdev=mem1,cap=3 > > + > > +As of ACPI 6.2 Errata A, the following values are valid for the bottom two > > +bits: > > + > > +2 - Memory Controller Flush to NVDIMM Durability on Power Loss Capable. > > +3 - CPU Cache Flush to NVDIMM Durability on Power Loss Capable. > > + > > +For a complete list of the flags available please consult the ACPI spec. > > + > > +These platform capabilities apply to the entire virtual platform, so it is > > +recommended that only one "cap" device command option be given per virtual > > +machine. This value will apply to all NVDIMMs in the virtual platform. > This looks like it should be machine property instead of per device one, > you can get rid of static variable and mismatch check and a weird nvdimm CLI > option that implies that the option is per device.
Yep, that's much better. I have this implemented and ready to go. > Also an extra patch to for make check that will test setting 'cap' > would be nice (an extra testcase in tests/bios-tables-test.c) Hmm...I've been looking at this, and it doesn't look like there is any verification around a lot of the ACPI tables (NFIT, SRAT, etc). I've verified my patch by interacting with a guest with various settings - is this good enough, or do you really want me to test the value (which I think would just be "do I get out what I put in at the command line") via the unit test infrastructure? Thank you for the review. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm