Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Classify error scenarios correctly

[Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>]

On 4/12/24 12:31 PM, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
> Sathya,
>
> Thanks for reviewing this
>
> On 4/12/2024 11:32 AM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> On 4/12/24 10:23 AM, Jithu Joseph wrote:
>>> Based on inputs from hardware architects, only "scan signature failures"
>>> should be treated as actual hardware/cpu failure.
>> Instead of just saying input from hardware architects, it would be better
>> if you mention the rationale behind it.
> I can reword the first para as below:
>
> "Scan controller error" means that scan hardware encountered an error
> prior to doing an actual test on the target CPU. It does not mean that
> there is an actual cpu/core failure. "scan signature failure" indicates
> that the test result on the target core did not match the expected value
> and should be treated as a cpu failure.
>
> Current driver classifies both these scenarios as failures. Modify ...

Looks good to me.

>>> Current driver, in addition, classifies "scan controller error" scenario
>>> too as a hardware/cpu failure. Modify the driver to classify this situation
>>> with a more appropriate "untested" status instead of "fail" status.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@intel.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
>>> Reviewe
>> Code wise it looks good to me.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
>>
>
> Jithu

-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer