Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/xe/ras: Clean up coding style in xe_drm_ras

["Tauro, Riana" <riana.tauro@intel.com>]

On 4/14/2026 5:57 AM, Lin, Shuicheng wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 9:46 PM Riana Tauro wrote:
>> On 4/11/2026 10:24 AM, Nguyen, Brian3 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2026 3:59 PM, Shuicheng Lin wrote:
>>>> - Fix long line in cleanup_node_param() signature.
>> All checkpatch errors were fixed in the original series.  The line length is in-line
>> with checkpatch.
>> Please provide the checkpatch error if you are seeing.
> Here it is:
> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_drm_ras.c
> CHECK: line length of 101 exceeds 100 columns
> #103: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_drm_ras.c:103:
> +static void cleanup_node_param(struct xe_drm_ras *ras, const enum drm_xe_ras_error_severity severity)
If you are re-working the first patch add it as part of the same.

Thanks
Riana

>
>>>> - Drop unnecessary const on pass-by-value enum parameters.
>> This can be added as part of any other functional series. A patch just for this is
>> not necessary.
> I am OK with it.
>
>>>> - Simplify xe_drm_ras_init() by removing redundant local variable
>>>>     and redundant error path.
>> Any reason?
> This is just code refine. If you don't agree with it, I won't insist on it.
> Since you will have new series, I will drop both patches, and feel free to integrate any change that you think worth.
> Thanks.
>
> Shuicheng
>
>> Thanks
>> Riana
>>>> No functional change.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>
>>>> Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4.6
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuicheng Lin <shuicheng.lin@intel.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Brian Nguyen <brian3.nguyen@intel.com>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_drm_ras.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
>>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_drm_ras.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_drm_ras.c index 802e4bcb731c..9cddad2be549
>>>> 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_drm_ras.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_drm_ras.c
>>>> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static struct xe_drm_ras_counter
>> *allocate_and_copy_counters(struct xe_device *x
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>>    static int assign_node_params(struct xe_device *xe, struct drm_ras_node
>> *node,
>>>> -			      const enum drm_xe_ras_error_severity severity)
>>>> +			      enum drm_xe_ras_error_severity severity)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(xe->drm.dev);
>>>>    	struct xe_drm_ras *ras = &xe->ras; @@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ static int
>>>> assign_node_params(struct xe_device *xe, struct drm_ras_node *node,
>>>>    	return ret;
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> -static void cleanup_node_param(struct xe_drm_ras *ras, const enum
>>>> drm_xe_ras_error_severity severity)
>>>> +static void cleanup_node_param(struct xe_drm_ras *ras,
>>>> +			       enum drm_xe_ras_error_severity severity)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct drm_ras_node *node = &ras->node[severity];
>>>>
>>>> @@ -174,15 +175,13 @@ static void xe_drm_ras_unregister_nodes(struct
>> drm_device *device, void *arg)
>>>>    int xe_drm_ras_init(struct xe_device *xe)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct xe_drm_ras *ras = &xe->ras;
>>>> -	struct drm_ras_node *node;
>>>>    	int err;
>>>>
>>>> -	node = drmm_kcalloc(&xe->drm, DRM_XE_RAS_ERR_SEV_MAX,
>> sizeof(*node), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> -	if (!node)
>>>> +	ras->node = drmm_kcalloc(&xe->drm, DRM_XE_RAS_ERR_SEV_MAX,
>>>> +				 sizeof(*ras->node), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +	if (!ras->node)
>>>>    		return -ENOMEM;
>>>>
>>>> -	ras->node = node;
>>>> -
>>>>    	err = register_nodes(xe);
>>>>    	if (err) {
>>>>    		drm_err(&xe->drm, "Failed to register DRM RAS nodes
>> (%pe)\n",
>>>> ERR_PTR(err)); @@ -190,10 +189,8 @@ int xe_drm_ras_init(struct
>> xe_device *xe)
>>>>    	}
>>>>
>>>>    	err = drmm_add_action_or_reset(&xe->drm,
>> xe_drm_ras_unregister_nodes, xe);
>>>> -	if (err) {
>>>> +	if (err)
>>>>    		drm_err(&xe->drm, "Failed to add action for Xe DRM RAS
>> (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
>>>> -		return err;
>>>> -	}
>>>>
>>>> -	return 0;
>>>> +	return err;
>>>>    }
>>>> --
>>>> 2.43.0