From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4451FCCFA05 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2025 13:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00ACB10EABF; Fri, 7 Nov 2025 13:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="YovslsLN"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.17]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA38810EABF for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2025 13:16:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1762521384; x=1794057384; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=0FwfOeMJY0bA8bBTbUNF5O8wPXcoGVefl5I0bpYVHyw=; b=YovslsLNBUYSEWSFwP5dBFyjIubmkqLPhj4LJ/lShl89/V3NjUcV+JIo 2adhqk60k1sArIFMi01GCjqW2gZ4Uq9FrGs7xSxlPWkdby0ymaJE3/eAM NW0hnHoOnKwXru/2zOkGqifD4HmZeGoc7zVE958JCLkDi6aZYFP8laaFT 9/S6JMvcoENfMUbAjigckW2dHJRVo1TY9ccknT/3FPzxUJQUvo8DrDCWg 3l5esJBQmGcpA8TgcEZZ9b+TTMbkeYfsl9d0xXhopTCSbhEuqUUMe4nMk zWtu7TdKYJXKppfFV9FRNQAww1PouuPCba5s7RqMeWQdqHB7LLxm9cPC1 g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: JFfcLxPbQqSHgF2MKW2kWA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 4ObZUMfoRf2psN5vPOe7Dw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11531"; a="64595928" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.17,312,1747724400"; d="scan'208";a="64595928" Received: from fmviesa005.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.145]) by orvoesa109.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Nov 2025 05:16:24 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 9Cx/c+apQbSH8jz8Pue1Jg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 2bnrRbCOSay7btDVWjOyag== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,286,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="192297225" Received: from dalessan-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.106]) by fmviesa005-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Nov 2025 05:16:21 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 15:16:18 +0200 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= To: Lucas De Marchi Cc: Raag Jadav , rodrigo.vivi@intel.com, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, riana.tauro@intel.com, matthew.brost@intel.com, michal.wajdeczko@intel.com, badal.nilawar@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/xe/pcode: Convert unsupported commands to debug level Message-ID: References: <20251107055746.110055-1-raag.jadav@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Patchwork-Hint: comment Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo X-BeenThere: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Xe graphics driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-xe" On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 06:03:28AM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 11:26:11AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > >If the device is running older pcode firmware, it is possible that newer > >mailbox commands are not supported by it. The respective functionality > >isn't useful in that case but neither is error logging, since it doesn't > >particularly signify anything wrong with pcode firmware or device as a > >whole. This is useful in cases where we want to make a decision on driver > >functionality based on pcode return codes and a bit simpler design choice > >compared to other solutions like checking pcode firmware version, which > >comes with additional complexity of binding every single command to a > >specific version and deems pcode commands useless in case driver fails to > >obtain it for reasons unrelated to pcode. > > yeah.. I don't think we should regress the support in new kernel > versions and require users to update their IFWI. However dropping the > error message here also makes it harder to find cases in which we are > indeed using a wrong command. > > I'd say to decide on err vs dbg based on CONFIG_DRM_XE_DEBUG so > developers can still see the error and take the right action. I think the caller should decide this. If it's explicitly probing for something that may or may not exist then use dbg(), otherwise use err(). -- Ville Syrjälä Intel