Thanks Ved. Minor nits below.
Would you be OK to send out a patch to the mailing list for these 3
changes and then subsequently a PR to the platform git on github? Let
me know if you need any help with this.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:06 AM Ved Shanbhogue <ved@...> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:44:41AM -0800, Kumar Sankaran wrote:
Will wording this as "Main memory must be protected with SECDED-ECC atThanks. Yes.
the minimum or a stronger/advanced method of protection" suffice?
The current wording is the following.Could I suggest:
All cache structures must be protected.
single-bit errors must be detected and corrected.
multi-bit errors can be detected and reported.
Platforms are free to implement more advanced features than the
minimalistic requirements that are mandated here. So we should be OK.
"Cache structures must be protected to address the Failure-in-time (FIT) requirements. The protection mechanisms may included single-bit/multi-bit error detection and/or single/multi-bit error detection/correction schemes, replaying faulting instructions, lock-step execution, etc."
Agree. I suggest we keep it high level and simply say "Cache
structures must be protected to address the Failure-in-time (FIT)
requirements. The protection mechanisms may include
single-bit/multi-bit error detection and/or single/multi-bit error
The current wording is "The platform should provide the capability toCould I suggest:
configure each RAS error to trigger firmware-first or OS-first error
Will this suffice or do we need to add more clarity?
"The platform should provide capability to configure RAS errors to trigger firmware-first or OS-first error interrupts."