RE: [PATCH v4 06/13] drm/xe/xe_ras: Add basic structures and commands for uncorrectable errors

Jadav, Raag
2026-04-17T21:25:43Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roper, Matthew D <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 02:28:18PM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote:
> > Add the commands and common structures for the get_soc_error
> > sysctrl command.

...

> > +/* Severity classification of detected errors */
> > +enum xe_ras_severity {
> > + XE_RAS_SEVERITY_NOT_SUPPORTED = 0,
> > + XE_RAS_SEVERITY_CORRECTABLE,
> > + XE_RAS_SEVERITY_UNCORRECTABLE,
> > + XE_RAS_SEVERITY_INFORMATIONAL,
> > + XE_RAS_SEVERITY_MAX
> > +};
>
> Drive-by comment: I notice that there's a fair amount of common changes
> between this uncorrectable series and Raag's correctable series, e.g.,
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260410102744.427150-4-raag.jadav@intel.com/
> However it seems that there have been some minor style differences
> between the two that would be good to reconcile (e.g., this series
> writes out the full XE_RAS_SEVERITY_*, XE_RAS_COMPONENT_*, etc.
> whereas
> Raag's series uses slightly shorter XE_RAS_SEV_*, XE_RAS_COMP_*, etc.
> names). Similar differences exist on some of the functions like
> severity_to_string (taking both the device and the severity) here vs
> sev_to_string (taking only the serverity) in the other series.
>
> We should probably figure out which form we actually want to go with so
> that we don't have last-minute conflicts as we start applying these
> series.

The one's in my series are consistent with uapi, but I'm okay with
either one. My only concern is that we don't invent overly long names
that warrant ugly wrapping while using them in the code.

Raag