Re: [PATCH v4 25/32] drm/xe/pcode: Report 'Mailbox failed' error using SIGID

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

On 8/13/2026 2:10 PM, Bhadane, Dnyaneshwar wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Intel-xe <intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of Michal
>> Wajdeczko
>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 12:45 AM
>> To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
>> Cc: Wajdeczko, Michal <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>; Vivi, Rodrigo
>> <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>; Tauro, Riana <riana.tauro@intel.com>; Iddamsetty,
>> Aravind <aravind.iddamsetty@intel.com>; Koujalagi, Mallesh
>> <mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH v4 25/32] drm/xe/pcode: Report 'Mailbox failed' error using
>> SIGID
>>
>> Report 'Mailbox failed' error using xe_log_err() helper.
>>
>> 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>
>> Reviewed-by: Mallesh Koujalagi <mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com>
>> ---
>> v2: say xe_log_err() in commit msg (Mallesh)
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c | 5 ++---
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c
>> index ccc3bdeed6bb..014632e11338 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>  #include "regs/xe_pmt.h"
>>  #include "xe_assert.h"
>>  #include "xe_device.h"
>> +#include "xe_log.h"
>>  #include "xe_mmio.h"
>>  #include "xe_pcode_api.h"
>>  #include "xe_pm.h"
>> @@ -61,9 +62,7 @@ static int pcode_mailbox_status(struct xe_tile *tile)
>>  	}
>>
>>  	if (err) {
>> -		drm_err(&tile_to_xe(tile)->drm, "PCODE Mailbox failed: %d %s",
>> -			err_decode, err_str);
>> -
>> +		xe_log_err(tile, PCODE, err_decode, "Mailbox failed: %s\n",
>> err_str);
>>  		return err_decode;
> Hey, 
> Could you please merge patch number #25, #26 and #27 into single patch ?
> Or is there any thought to kept as separate. ? 

the idea was to have proper discussion on each new SIGID usage
then we can merge each acked/r-b'ed patch separately if needed

and as the side-effect we indicate that we don't aim to have
single giant patch per each SIGID and after that topic is closed

as you know, earlier attempt like [1] to do everything in single
patch was far from ready to merge and it would be hard to finish
that in a finite time

[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/744652/?series=171725&rev=1

> 
> Regards, 
> Dnyaneshwar
>>  	}
>>
>> --
>> 2.47.1
>