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. 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
