From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Baicar, Tyler" Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 02/10] ras: acpi/apei: cper: generic error data entry v3 per ACPI 6.1 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:37:33 -0600 Message-ID: <912acc88-fbaf-2576-8048-1fcc67439600@codeaurora.org> References: <1475875882-2604-1-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org> <1475875882-2604-3-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org> <3f17d0a8-6b63-5792-903a-341effaae432@arm.com> <064dca7d-0625-c0d0-09ae-72ef7abdc63f@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <064dca7d-0625-c0d0-09ae-72ef7abdc63f@arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu To: Suzuki K Poulose , christoffer.dall@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, robert.moore@intel.com, lv.zheng@intel.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, sandeepa.s.prabhu@gmail.com, shijie.huang@arm.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org, fu.wei@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, bristot@redhat.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Dkvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org Cc: Naveen Kaje , Richard Ruigrok , "Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hello Suzuki, On 10/13/2016 2:50 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > On 12/10/16 23:10, Baicar, Tyler wrote: >> Hello Suzuki, >> >> Thank you for the feedback! Responses below. >> >> On 10/11/2016 11:28 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >>> On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote: >>>> Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped. >>>> The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field to the generic error >>>> data entry v3 structure. The timestamp of when the firmware >>>> generated the error is now being reported. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang >>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Ruigrok >>>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baicar >>>> Signed-off-by: Naveen Kaje >>> >>> Please could you keep the people who reviewed/commented on your = >>> series in the past, >>> whenever you post a new version ? >> Do you mean to just send the new version to their e-mail directly in = >> addition to the lists? If so, I will do that next time. > > If you send a new version of a series to the list, it is a good idea = > to keep > the people who commented (significantly) on your previous version in = > Cc, especially > when you have addressed their feedback. That will help them to keep = > track of the > series. People can always see the new version in the list, but then it = > is so easy > to miss something in the 100s of emails you get each day. I am sure = > people have > special filters for the emails based on if they are in Cc/To etc. > Okay, understood. I'll make sure to add those who have commented in the = cc/to list to avoid the e-mail filters. >> >> I know you provided good feedback on the previous patchset, but I did = >> not have anyone specifically respond to add "reviewed-by:...". I = >> don't think I should add reviewed-by for someone unless they = >> specifically add it in a response :) > > No, I haven't yet "Reviewed-by" your patches. I had some comments on = > it, which means > I expected it to be addressed as you committed in your response. > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c >>>> index 3021f0e..c8488f1 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c >>>> @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ > >> I think that should work to avoid duplication. I will move them to a = >> header file in the next patchset. >>>> + >>>> +static void cper_estatus_print_section_v300(const char *pfx, >>>> + const struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *gdata) >>>> +{ >>>> + __u8 hour, min, sec, day, mon, year, century, *timestamp; >>>> + >>>> + if (gdata->validation_bits & ACPI_HEST_GEN_VALID_TIMESTAMP) { >>>> + timestamp =3D (__u8 *)&(gdata->time_stamp); >>>> + memcpy(&sec, timestamp, 1); >>>> + memcpy(&min, timestamp + 1, 1); >>>> + memcpy(&hour, timestamp + 2, 1); >>>> + memcpy(&day, timestamp + 4, 1); >>>> + memcpy(&mon, timestamp + 5, 1); >>>> + memcpy(&year, timestamp + 6, 1); >>>> + memcpy(¢ury, timestamp + 7, 1); >>>> + printk("%stime: ", pfx); >>>> + printk("%7s", 0x01 & *(timestamp + 3) ? "precise" : ""); >>> >>> What format is the (timestamp + 3) stored in ? Does it need = >>> conversion ? >> The third byte of the timestamp is currently only used to determine = >> if the time is precise or not. Bit 0 is used to specify that and the = >> other bits in this byte are marked as reserved. This is shown in = >> table 247 of the UEFI spec 2.6: >> >> Byte 3: >> Bit 0 =96 Timestamp is precise if this bit is set and correlates to = >> the time of the error event. >> Bit 7:1 =96 Reserved > > Is it always the same endianness as that of the CPU ? It is a fair assumption that the firmware populating this record will = use a CPU of the same endianness. There is no mechanism in the spec to = indicate otherwise. Thanks, Tyler > > Cheers > Suzuki > -- = Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technolo= gies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.