Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/xe/ras: Report CSC errors using SIGID

[Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>]

On 8/12/2026 1:52 AM, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
> Use xe_log_err() to report CSC errors using SIGID.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c
> index d1aa3794f2e0..e50ab49bce5a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c
> @@ -283,9 +283,8 @@ static u8 handle_soc_internal_errors(struct xe_device *xe, struct xe_ras_error_a
>  		 * is required.
>  		 */
>  		if (csc_error->hec_fw_error) {
> -			xe_err(xe, "[RAS]: CSC %s detected: 0x%x\n",
> -			       sev_to_str(counter->common.severity),
> -			       csc_error->hec_fw_error);
> +			xe_log_err(xe, SOC, 0, "[RAS]: CSC %s detected: 0x%x\n",
> +				   sev_to_str(counter->common.severity), csc_error->hec_fw_error);

hmm, it was assumed that for HW errors we will use 12 byte data
while xe_log_err is mostly for the SW errors where we use errno

do we still need to use "RAS" prefix ?

maybe we should add component XE_LOG_COMPONENT_CSC with SIGID_SOC_INTERNAL ?

shouldn't we use common.severity to select right xe_log/CPER severity ?

>  			xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable(xe);
>  			return XE_RAS_RECOVERY_ACTION_DISCONNECT;
>  		}