Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] drm/xe/xe_ras: Add support to clear error counter

[Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>]

On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 10:45:24AM +0530, Tauro, Riana wrote:
> On 5/18/2026 11:28 PM, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:52:09AM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote:
> > > Add structures and helper function to clear error counter value.

...

> > > +static const int ras_status_to_errno_map[] = {
> > Nit: Redundant 'map', just use 'xe' prefix.
> > 
> > > +	[XE_RAS_STATUS_SUCCESS]			= 0,
> > > +	[XE_RAS_STATUS_INVALID_PARAM]		= -EINVAL,
> > > +	[XE_RAS_STATUS_OP_NOT_SUPPORTED]	= -EOPNOTSUPP,
> > > +	[XE_RAS_STATUS_TIMEOUT]			= -ETIMEDOUT,
> > > +	[XE_RAS_STATUS_HARDWARE_FAILURE]	= -EIO,
> > > +	[XE_RAS_STATUS_INSUFFICIENT_RESOURCES]	= -ENOSPC,
> > > +	[XE_RAS_STATUS_UNKNOWN_ERROR]		= -EIO
> > -EPROTO?
> 
> This is protocol error. Would be misleading to userspace. -EIO is better for
> unknown errors
> indicating an hardware error

This will most likely end up in user land, so probably worth making it
distinguishable from XE_RAS_STATUS_HARDWARE_FAILURE. We return -EPROTO
for similar pcode cases, so I thought we'd make it consistent but I'll
leave it to you.

Raag