On 8/7/2026 1:18 PM, Mallesh, Koujalagi wrote:

On 30-07-2026 08:51 pm, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:

Report various 'Survivability Mode' errors using xe_log() helpers.

Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>
Cc: Aravind Iddamsetty <aravind.iddamsetty@intel.com>
Cc: Mallesh Koujalagi <mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c | 24 +++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c
index 4c506027fa94..788b7e8137a9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c
@@ -14,9 +14,11 @@
 #include "xe_device.h"
 #include "xe_heci_gsc.h"
 #include "xe_i2c.h"
+#include "xe_log.h"
 #include "xe_mmio.h"
 #include "xe_nvm.h"
 #include "xe_pcode_api.h"
+#include "xe_printk.h"
 #include "xe_vsec.h"
 
 /**
@@ -179,11 +181,11 @@ static void log_survivability_info(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 	u32 *info = survivability->info;
 	int id;
 
-	dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Survivability Boot Status : Critical Failure (%d)\n",
-		 survivability->boot_status);
+	xe_log_info(xe, SURVIVABILITY, "Boot Status : Critical Failure (%d)\n",
+		    survivability->boot_status);

btw, is it OK that we use INFO level for "critical failure" ?

Good catch! We log the message when the device has a critical boot failure and the survivability is too old to handle if (version < 2)

so the driver is about to abort with -ENXIO. Using xe_log_info for that situation is wrong one. Using 

xe_log_err_fatal(xe, SURVIVABILITY, -ENXIO, ...); we can fix it.

 	for (id = 0; id < MAX_SCRATCH_REG; id++) {
 		if (info[id])
-			dev_info(&pdev->dev, "%s: 0x%x\n", reg_map[id], info[id]);
+			xe_log_info(xe, SURVIVABILITY, "%s: 0x%x\n", reg_map[id], info[id]);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -316,7 +318,6 @@ static int create_survivability_sysfs(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 
 static int enable_boot_survivability_mode(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 {
-	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
 	struct xe_device *xe = pdev_to_xe_device(pdev);
 	struct xe_survivability *survivability = &xe->survivability;
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -342,12 +343,12 @@ static int enable_boot_survivability_mode(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 	if (ret)
 		goto err;
 
-	dev_err(dev, "In Survivability Mode\n");
-
+	xe_log_emit(pdev, check_boot_failure(xe) ? CPER_SEV_FATAL : CPER_SEV_INFORMATIONAL,
+		    XE_SIGID_SURVIVABILITY, 0, 0, 0, 0, "In Survivability Boot Mode\n");

Please make it cleaner and simpler.

sure

it was one of the earliest examples of the new xe_log API,
and that's why it was using the base xe_log function

if(check_boot_failure(xe))

    xe_log_err_fatal(xe, SURVIVABILITY, .. );

else

     xe_log_info(xe, SURVIVABILITY, .. );


OR

xe_log_emit(xe_any_to_pdev(xe),

we do have pdev already, no need to cast back to xe

            check_boot_failure(xe) ? CPER_SEV_FATAL : CPER_SEV_INFORMATIONAL,
            XE_SIGID_SURVIVABILITY, XE_LOG_COMPONENT_SURVIVABILITY,
            xe_log_location(xe),
            &survivability->boot_status, sizeof(survivability->boot_status),

cool, but isn't this already printed in log_survivability_info() ?

            "In Survivability Boot Mode\n");

btw, as we use SURVIVABILITY component, the dmesg will already
have "SURVIVABILITY: " decoration, so maybe this msg should be:

	"Boot mode enabled!\n"

with dmesg:

	<3> [drm] ERROR SIGID=103 FATAL (04) SURVIVABILITY: Boot mode enabled!
or
	<6> [drm] SIGID=103 SURVIVABILITY: Boot mode enabled!

 	return 0;
 
 err:
-	dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable Survivability Mode\n");
+	xe_log_err_fatal(xe, SURVIVABILITY, ret, "Failed to enable Survivability Mode\n");

and here:

	"Failed to enter Boot mode!\n"

with dmesg:

	<3> [drm] ERROR SIGID=103 FATAL (-ENOMEM) SURVIVABILITY: Failed to enter Boot mode!

 	survivability->mode = false;
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -412,7 +413,7 @@ void xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable(struct xe_device *xe)
 	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(xe->drm.dev);
 
 	if (!IS_DGFX(xe) || IS_SRIOV_VF(xe) || xe->info.platform < XE_BATTLEMAGE) {
-		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Runtime Survivability Mode not supported\n");
+		xe_log_info(xe, SURVIVABILITY, "Runtime Mode not supported!\n");

We can add xe_log_err(xe, SURVIVABILITY, -EOPNOTSUPP, ...);

hmm, actually I was wondering if this dev_err() was correct
maybe it should be just xe_dbg() as we are not doing anything
related to SURVIVABILITY ?

That function is called in runtime survivability, so debugger will get the context easily and figure it out

what cause it.

 		return;
 	}
 
@@ -422,11 +423,14 @@ void xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable(struct xe_device *xe)
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to create survivability sysfs\n");

need to use xe_log_err(xe, SURVIVABILITY. -EIO, ... );

 
 	survivability->type = XE_SURVIVABILITY_TYPE_RUNTIME;
-	dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Runtime Survivability mode enabled\n");
+	xe_log_err_fatal(xe, SURVIVABILITY, 0, "Runtime Mode enabled!\n");

hmm, Logging error as fatal, however passing err=0 (Success). is it right? or simply we can log as xe_log_err or xe_log_info ? any thoughts.

passing 0 instead of errno to xe_log_err() helpers will just omit
printing anything in ( ), no %pe nor %phN

whether this should be info/fatal/recoverable it's not me to answer
your initial documentation [1] was saying that all XE_SIG_SURVIVABILITY
should have CPER_SEV_FATAL

[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/732271/?series=168333&rev=1

 
 	xe_device_set_wedged_method(xe, DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_VENDOR);
 	xe_device_declare_wedged(xe);
-	dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Firmware flash required, Please refer to the userspace documentation for more details!\n");
+
+	xe_log_err_fatal(xe, SURVIVABILITY, 0, "Firmware flash required!\n");

ditto

ditto ;)

+	xe_info(xe, "Please refer to the userspace documentation for more details how to flash the firmware on %s!\n",
+		xe->info.platform_name);
 }
 
 /**