From: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
To: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, anshuman.gupta@intel.com,
rodrigo.vivi@intel.com, daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com,
riana.tauro@intel.com, mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com,
aravind.iddamsetty@intel.com, himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com,
arvind.yadav@intel.com, syed.abdul.muqthyar.ahmed@intel.com,
nitin.r.gote@intel.com, pravalika.gurram@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/12] drm/xe/cper: Retrieve the error counter record for CPER reporting
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 11:07:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <asyjSMUDo0XMX-U4@black.igk.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261009104602.1075405-16-badal.nilawar@intel.com>
On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 at 04:16:05PM +0530, Badal Nilawar wrote:
> Retrieve error counter record required to build a CPER record.
>
> Assisted-by: Copilot:Claude-Opus-5.5
> Signed-off-by: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>
> ---
> v4:
> - Drop redundant xe_ras_counter_is_valid() check (Raag)
> - Add might_sleep() to assert that the caller is in a sleepable
> context (sashiko)
> - Add xe_device_assert_mem_access() to assert the outer runtime PM
> wake reference requirement (sashiko)
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_cper.c | 14 ++++++++++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_cper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_cper.c
> index c5caa0e8f496..4f0ed5096aac 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_cper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_cper.c
> @@ -4,10 +4,13 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/minmax.h>
>
> #include "xe_cper.h"
> #include "xe_device.h"
> +#include "xe_printk.h"
> +#include "xe_ras.h"
> #include "xe_ras_types.h"
>
> static bool is_hw_sigid(enum xe_sigid sigid)
> @@ -18,7 +21,16 @@ static bool is_hw_sigid(enum xe_sigid sigid)
> static void xe_cper_emit_hw_err(struct xe_device *xe, int cper_sev, enum xe_sigid sigid,
> const struct xe_ras_error_class *error_class)
> {
> - /* TODO */
> + struct xe_ras_get_counter_response local_resp;
Why 'local'? Do we have any other?
> + /* Fetching the counter sends a sysctrl command */
> + might_sleep();
> + xe_device_assert_mem_access(xe);
> +
> + if (xe_ras_get_counter_response(xe, error_class, &local_resp)) {
Make the naming consistent with existing code, i.e.
xe_ras_get_counter_response(xe, &counter, &response)
> + xe_err(xe, "CPER: failed to get counter, skipping record\n");
> + return;
> + }
> }
>
> /**
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c
> index 7a85735c57d5..5cfc9beff8c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c
> @@ -103,8 +103,6 @@ static const char * const gpu_health_states[] = {
> };
> static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(gpu_health_states) == XE_RAS_HEALTH_MAX);
>
> -static int get_counter(struct xe_device *xe, struct xe_ras_error_class *counter, u32 *value);
> -
> static u8 drm_to_xe_ras_severity(u8 severity)
> {
> switch (severity) {
> @@ -284,21 +282,21 @@ static void ras_usp_aer_init(struct xe_device *xe)
> static void ras_send_error_event(struct xe_device *xe, u8 severity, u8 component)
> {
> struct xe_ras_error_class counter = {0};
> + struct xe_ras_get_counter_response response = {0};
Hm, not all users of get_counter() are interested in the entire response.
So why not have it wrapped? Perhaps something like
static get_counter()
{
response = {0};
ret = xe_ras_get_counter_response(xe, &counter, &response);
if (ret)
return ret;
*value = response.value;
return 0;
}
Tidy? ;)
> u8 drm_severity, drm_component;
> - u32 value;
> int ret;
>
> counter.common.severity = severity;
> counter.common.component = component;
>
> - ret = get_counter(xe, &counter, &value);
> + ret = xe_ras_get_counter_response(xe, &counter, &response);
> if (ret)
> return;
>
> drm_severity = xe_to_drm_ras_severity(severity);
> drm_component = xe_to_drm_ras_component(component);
>
> - xe_drm_ras_event(xe, drm_component, drm_severity, value);
> + xe_drm_ras_event(xe, drm_component, drm_severity, response.value);
> }
>
> static u8 handle_core_compute_errors(struct xe_ras_error_array *arr)
> @@ -433,19 +431,30 @@ void xe_ras_counter_threshold_crossed(struct xe_device *xe,
> }
> }
>
> -static int get_counter(struct xe_device *xe, struct xe_ras_error_class *counter, u32 *value)
> +/**
> + * xe_ras_get_counter_response() - Get error counter record
> + * @xe: Xe device instance
> + * @counter: RAS error class
> + * @out: Counter record retrieved
Nit: ... to be retrieved
> + * Retrieve the counter record of a specific error class from firmware.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, negative error code on failure.
> + */
> +int xe_ras_get_counter_response(struct xe_device *xe, const struct xe_ras_error_class *counter,
> + struct xe_ras_get_counter_response *out)
'response'?
> {
> - struct xe_ras_get_counter_response response = {0};
> struct xe_ras_get_counter_request request = {0};
> struct xe_sysctrl_mailbox_command command = {0};
> struct xe_ras_error_common *common;
> size_t rlen;
> int ret;
>
> + memset(out, 0, sizeof(*out));
Nack. No modifying input data, the caller is responsible for this.
> request.counter = *counter;
>
> xe_sysctrl_create_command(&command, XE_SYSCTRL_GROUP_GFSP, XE_SYSCTRL_CMD_GET_COUNTER,
> - &request, sizeof(request), &response, sizeof(response));
> + &request, sizeof(request), out, sizeof(*out));
>
> ret = xe_sysctrl_send_command(&xe->sc, &command, &rlen);
> if (ret) {
> @@ -453,19 +462,18 @@ static int get_counter(struct xe_device *xe, struct xe_ras_error_class *counter,
> return ret;
> }
>
> - if (rlen != sizeof(response)) {
> + if (rlen != sizeof(*out)) {
> xe_err(xe, "sysctrl: unexpected get counter response length %zu (expected %zu)\n",
> - rlen, sizeof(response));
> + rlen, sizeof(*out));
> return -EIO;
> }
>
> - if (!ras_counter_is_valid(xe, &response.counter))
> + if (!ras_counter_is_valid(xe, &out->counter))
> return -EBADMSG;
>
> - common = &response.counter.common;
> - *value = response.value;
> + common = &out->counter.common;
>
> - xe_dbg(xe, "[RAS]: get counter %u for %s %s\n", *value, comp_to_str(common->component),
> + xe_dbg(xe, "[RAS]: get counter %u for %s %s\n", out->value, comp_to_str(common->component),
> sev_to_str(common->severity));
>
> return 0;
> @@ -596,12 +604,19 @@ enum xe_ras_recovery_action xe_ras_process_errors(struct xe_device *xe)
> int xe_ras_get_counter(struct xe_device *xe, u8 severity, u8 component, u32 *value)
> {
> struct xe_ras_error_class counter = {0};
> + struct xe_ras_get_counter_response response = {0};
With get_counter() intact, this won't be needed.
Raag
> + int ret;
>
> counter.common.severity = drm_to_xe_ras_severity(severity);
> counter.common.component = drm_to_xe_ras_component(component);
>
> guard(xe_pm_runtime)(xe);
> - return get_counter(xe, &counter, value);
> + ret = xe_ras_get_counter_response(xe, &counter, &response);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + *value = response.value;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /**
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.h
> index 0b8669f28d56..84700ea63394 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.h
> @@ -20,5 +20,7 @@ int xe_ras_get_threshold(struct xe_device *xe, u8 severity, u8 component, u32 *t
> int xe_ras_set_threshold(struct xe_device *xe, u8 severity, u8 component, u32 threshold);
> void xe_ras_init(struct xe_device *xe);
> enum xe_ras_recovery_action xe_ras_process_errors(struct xe_device *xe);
> +int xe_ras_get_counter_response(struct xe_device *xe, const struct xe_ras_error_class *counter,
> + struct xe_ras_get_counter_response *out);
>
> #endif
> --
> 2.54.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-12 9:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-09 10:46 [PATCH v4 00/12] Add CPER logging support for CRI Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 01/12] drm/xe/cper: Add CPER reporting entry point for xe_log Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:43 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-09 12:17 ` Nilawar, Badal
2026-10-12 6:18 ` Raag Jadav
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 02/12] drm/xe/cper: Retrieve the error counter record for CPER reporting Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:46 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-09 12:27 ` Nilawar, Badal
2026-10-12 9:07 ` Raag Jadav [this message]
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 03/12] drm/xe/cper: Initialize Intel-specific error section header Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 04/12] drm/xe/cper: Construct CPER record for hardware errors Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 05/12] drm/xe/xe_ras: Add support to retrieve info queue data for CRI Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:40 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-09 12:45 ` Nilawar, Badal
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 06/12] drm/xe/cper: Prepare Intel CPER error info records Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:41 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-09 13:07 ` Nilawar, Badal
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 07/12] drm/xe/cper: Log CPER records for aggregate counter retrieval Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 08/12] drm/xe/cper: Emit cper record to trace buf Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:38 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 09/12] drm/xe/xe_ras: Report device memory errors using SIGID Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 10/12] drm/xe/xe_ras: Report core compute " Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 11/12] drm/xe/xe_ras: Report soc internal " Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:46 ` [PATCH v4 12/12] drm/xe/xe_ras: Report correctable " Badal Nilawar
2026-10-09 10:50 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-09 10:54 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Add CPER logging support for CRI (rev4) Patchwork
2026-10-09 10:56 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-10-09 12:03 ` ✗ Xe.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2026-10-09 15:13 ` ✓ Xe.CI.FULL: success " Patchwork
2026-10-12 6:14 ` [PATCH v4 00/12] Add CPER logging support for CRI Raag Jadav
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=asyjSMUDo0XMX-U4@black.igk.intel.com \
--to=raag.jadav@intel.com \
--cc=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
--cc=aravind.iddamsetty@intel.com \
--cc=arvind.yadav@intel.com \
--cc=badal.nilawar@intel.com \
--cc=daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com \
--cc=himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com \
--cc=nitin.r.gote@intel.com \
--cc=pravalika.gurram@intel.com \
--cc=riana.tauro@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=syed.abdul.muqthyar.ahmed@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox