Re: [PATCH v7 14/17] cxl/pci: Update CXL Port RAS logging to also display PCIe SBDF

Alison Schofield
2025-02-12T23:30:47Z

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 01:24:41PM -0600, Terry Bowman wrote:
> CXL RAS errors are currently logged using the associated CXL port's name
> returned from devname(). They are typically named with 'port1', 'port2',
> etc. to indicate the hierarchial location in the CXL topology. But, this
> doesn't clearly indicate the CXL card or slot reporting the error.
>
> Update the logging to also log the corresponding PCIe devname. This will
> give a PCIe SBDF or ACPI object name (in case of CXL HB). This will provide
> details helping users understand which physical slot and card has the
> error.
>
> Below is example output after making these changes.
>
> Correctable error example output:
> cxl_port_aer_correctable_error: device=port1 (0000:0c:00.0) parent=root0 (pci0000:0c) status='Received Error From Physical Layer'
>
> Uncorrectable error example output:
> cxl_port_aer_uncorrectable_error: device=port1 (0000:0c:00.0) parent=root0 (pci0000:0c) status: 'Memory Byte Enable Parity Error' first_error: 'Memory Byte Enable Parity Error'

snip
>
>
> TRACE_EVENT(cxl_port_aer_uncorrectable_error,
> - TP_PROTO(struct device *dev, u32 status, u32 fe, u32 *hl),
> - TP_ARGS(dev, status, fe, hl),
> + TP_PROTO(struct device *cxl_dev, struct device *pcie_dev, u32 status, u32 fe, u32 *hl),
> + TP_ARGS(cxl_dev, pcie_dev, status, fe, hl),
> TP_STRUCT__entry(
> - __string(devname, dev_name(dev))
> - __string(parent, dev_name(dev->parent))
> + __string(cxl_name, dev_name(cxl_dev))
> + __string(cxl_parent_name, dev_name(cxl_dev->parent))
> + __string(pcie_name, dev_name(pcie_dev))
> + __string(pcie_parent_name, dev_name(pcie_dev->parent))

I get the rename of devname->cxl_name and parent->cxl_parent_name
since now we have pcie names too. How about making those changes
in the previous patch where devname and parent are introduced. Then
this patch doesn't have any changes other than adding the pcie names.

Having said that, should/can this merge with the patch before it?

snip