Re: [RESEND v13 06/25] cxl: Move CXL driver's RCH error handling into core/ras_rch.c

Bowman, Terry
2025-11-19T16:07:23Z

On 11/18/2025 9:20 PM, dan.j.williams@intel.com wrote:
> Terry Bowman wrote:
>> Restricted CXL Host (RCH) protocol error handling uses a procedure distinct
>> from the CXL Virtual Hierarchy (VH) handling. This is because of the
>> differences in the RCH and VH topologies. Improve the maintainability and
>> add ability to enable/disable RCH handling.
>>
>> Move and combine the RCH handling code into a single block conditionally
>> compiled with the CONFIG_CXL_RCH_RAS kernel config.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@amd.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v12->v13:
>> - None
>>
>> Changes v11->v12:
>> - Moved CXL_RCH_RAS Kconfig definition here from following commit.
>>
>> Changes v10->v11:
>> - New patch
>> ---
>> drivers/cxl/Kconfig | 7 +++
>> drivers/cxl/core/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/cxl/core/core.h | 5 +-
>> drivers/cxl/core/pci.c | 115 -----------------------------------
>> drivers/cxl/core/ras_rch.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tools/testing/cxl/Kbuild | 1 +
>> 6 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 117 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 drivers/cxl/core/ras_rch.c
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/Kconfig b/drivers/cxl/Kconfig
>> index 217888992c88..ffe6ad981434 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cxl/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/Kconfig
>> @@ -237,4 +237,11 @@ config CXL_RAS
>> def_bool y
>> depends on ACPI_APEI_GHES && PCIEAER && CXL_PCI
>>
>> +config CXL_RCH_RAS
>> + bool "CXL: Restricted CXL Host (RCH) protocol error handling"
>> + def_bool n
> "n" is already the default... but I think this optionality should be
> scrapped.

Ok
>> + depends on CXL_RAS
>> + help
>> + RAS support for Restricted CXL Host (RCH) defined in CXL1.1.
> I can not imagine an end user or distro ever knowing that they need to
> disable or enable this option. What is the motivation for making this
> support optional going forward and defaulting RCH error handling off
> after all this time?
>
> ...does it get in the way of VH error handling?
>
> Otherwise the decluttering of adding a ras_rch.c file looks ok on its
> own.
No, it does not get in the way of VH. I wasn't certain which to use, 'y' or 'n'.
I will remove the option and use default as you mentioned.

Terry