Re: [PATCH v14 6/8] cxl/mem: Configure dynamic capacity interrupts

[Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>]

On 9/21/26 4:42 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c
>>> index 7b756000a1a6..6ef47265da10 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c
>>> @@ -1818,7 +1818,10 @@ static int cxl_mock_mem_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  	if (rc)
>>>  		dev_dbg(dev, "No CXL FWCTL setup\n");
>>>  
>>> -	cxl_mem_get_event_records(mds, CXLDEV_EVENT_STATUS_ALL);
>>> +	cxl_mem_get_event_records(mds, CXLDEV_EVENT_STATUS_INFO |
>>> +				       CXLDEV_EVENT_STATUS_WARN |
>>> +				       CXLDEV_EVENT_STATUS_FAIL |
>>> +				       CXLDEV_EVENT_STATUS_FATAL);  
>>
>> Second time I'm seeing this constructed mask being used in this commit. Maybe create a define for it?
>>
>> s/CXLDEV_EVENT_STATUS_ALL/CXLDEV_EVENT_STATUS_BASE/ perhaps?
> 
> That was Anisa acting on my feedbakc on previous.
> I don't like _ALL because we already have an example of the spec
> expanding and the definition becoming messy. But mainly I was
> pushing back against _ALL + masking with one element we didn't
> want as fragile.  So I'm not against _ALL if it is made up of
> another define + DCD (for now) and that other define can be
> used in places like this.
> 
> Bikeshed time... BASE is usually a define for a reg address and it is
> is hard to come up with a name for that when it is a mixture of
> RAS stuff and INFO which can be a wide range of random nasty
> and nice things.
> 
> So with the right name seems fine to have what Dave suggests.
> I'm just not sure what that name is!  Hence I'd just stick
> to the long hand option.

Yeah if we can't come up with anything good then leave it as is. 

> 
> Jonathan
> 
>>
>>>  	cxl_mock_test_feat_init(mdata);
>>>  
>>>  	return 0;  
>>
>>
>