Re: [PATCH v4 04/12] drm/xe/cper: Construct CPER record for hardware errors

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

On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:24:45PM +0530, Nilawar, Badal wrote:
> 
> On 22-10-2026 19:10, Nilawar, Badal wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 14-10-2026 16:00, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > > +static const struct xe_platform_id_entry xe_platform_ids[] = {
> > > > +	/* 0x674C  platform/8086:674c */
> > > > +	{ 0x674C, GUID_INIT(0x9046afe5, 0x9041, 0x5124,
> > > > +			    0x86, 0x14, 0x92, 0x55, 0x0d, 0x9e, 0x9d, 0xa6) },
> > > > +	/* 0x674D  platform/8086:674d */
> > > > +	{ 0x674D, GUID_INIT(0xf95911b8, 0x6564, 0x5905,
> > > > +			    0xa6, 0xa7, 0xb9, 0xbf, 0x54, 0xab, 0x6c, 0x27) },
> > > > +	/* 0x674E  platform/8086:674e */
> > > > +	{ 0x674E, GUID_INIT(0xb8d24106, 0x0108, 0x59f1,
> > > > +			    0x8f, 0xfc, 0x9f, 0xc4, 0xa9, 0xc9, 0xb7, 0xb0) },
> > > > +	/* 0x674F  platform/8086:674f */
> > > > +	{ 0x674F, GUID_INIT(0xdd8dd88e, 0xef2f, 0x59b1,
> > > > +			    0x99, 0x15, 0xdb, 0x6f, 0x1d, 0xc9, 0xb4, 0x5d) },
> > > > +	/* 0x6750  platform/8086:6750 */
> > > > +	{ 0x6750, GUID_INIT(0x1dd66c44, 0x87d5, 0x524a,
> > > > +			    0xad, 0x6e, 0xfc, 0x18, 0x9d, 0x42, 0x6f, 0x1a) },
> > > > +	/* 0x6751  platform/8086:6751 */
> > > > +	{ 0x6751, GUID_INIT(0x17d0dd04, 0x2fad, 0x5400,
> > > > +			    0x99, 0xc8, 0x9b, 0x45, 0x51, 0x3b, 0x67, 0xe3) },
> > > > +};
> > > This is unrelated to cper and shouldn't be here. I'll rely on Matt's
> > > input on how to deal with these.
> > 
> > Agreed, I don't think this is the ideal place either. For now, I'll keep
> > it here and, based on Matt's input, consider moving it to xe_pci.c,
> > which maintains the PCI ID list for the platforms supported by Xe.
> > 
> One reason I placed the table here is that these aren’t general-purpose
> platform GUIDs; they’re UUIDv5 values generated specifically for CPER’s
> platform_id field, using platform/8086:<device-id> as the name.
> 
> Since CPER is their only consumer, keeping the mapping with the CPER code
> seems reasonable to me.  I’m happy to follow Matt’s input if there’s a
> preferred place for this kind of mapping.

My only concern is that we usually don't have device ids lying around in
random components, but that I think is upto the maintainers.

Raag