From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3qPTnQ1XFkzDq5d
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:28:26 +1100 (AEDT)
Message-ID: <1458034105.10733.5.camel@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powernv/hmi: Use the "unknown" checkstop type as a
 fallback
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc>, Andrew Donnellan
 <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:28:25 +1100
In-Reply-To: <1458018919.30802.4.camel@russell.cc>
References: <1458012409-32448-1-git-send-email-ruscur@russell.cc>
 <56E787FE.1060104@au1.ibm.com> <1458018919.30802.4.camel@russell.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 16:15 +1100, Russell Currey wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 14:56 +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > On 15/03/16 14:26, Russell Currey wrote:
> > >
> > > The HMI code knows about three types of errors: CORE, NX and UNKNOWN.
> > > If OPAL were to add a new type, it would not be handled at all since
> > > there is no fallback case.  Instead of explicitly checking for UNKNOWN,
> > > treat any checkstop type without a handler as unknown.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc>
> > Indeed it looks like there isn't a fallback case.
> >
> > Would it be useful to print xstop_type in the unknown case?
>
> I don't think so - if there's a new checkstop type, specific handling for
> it should be implemented in the kernel, and if you're getting unknown
> checkstops that are bringing down your machine you should be looking at the
> OPAL firmware log anyway, which would contain details if there was
> something "new".

That's probably true.

But it's trivial to print it out, so I'd rather we did.

Putting it in a local would be nice, rather than saying
hmi_evt->u.xstop_error.xstop_type twice.

cheers