From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA143611D; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:46:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712954811; cv=none; b=mpr8A1Aw+/GlFyGvZ4jIoeCHc0anzCH7gFa1YkjGMZ/V60E4nHU8kHMujstxK2EjN3QKUdrUxRISUTK3PvtRGocR0HSxbh9lBK99ZWKkPiWzFD3sDYUOT0q2TQBzSRTu1CEOYTvCvRd+OdiREH1YLyzdQsWmRUD2rg4ZAmveqWk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712954811; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NaJW1CpbCmMiu1vp/LaOL7R6yRq69skyK1KPbmyNeKc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=se2EFwqVbTAno0V89QLZzxTlVdUQ3aW65EE2NqFRc9NxRAXTGqa/S8tMTp13dhxZy34werp+UDKhnDTlYeCYaaGv2byI7inWA0jc/hEWEqpYPSLKBOKMrSB+5ONuytthnsd+2QfPZIKeE2pZXfiV21V4TqTXltbSIDPO8dz0gfg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=lXeDWohx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="lXeDWohx" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1712954810; x=1744490810; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NaJW1CpbCmMiu1vp/LaOL7R6yRq69skyK1KPbmyNeKc=; b=lXeDWohx382qblvyj4kOiN+PWa60YVla0aovhf8gTqA5U1RI0fpM6Tmh y0EkOeVW2PBNwWykbMLtJBOn3WJungCleotUcFa1qGFjSvet2IhwpXsLq F7vLiixm+tBpOIOzMA2Eve38UqAPCB9M/VRk+jwqczs4zRAs9mneg+lAC Y0jWqZExIa14qv+A/Qp09cfG+40Nsfc8fYCMrle4kFq5uZB2NMvMfTFE4 +/8NWQAtUUY1+8wjST9yAObfiTL/3GAP2FuJXajxbGd0npdw+65X3fjif 033Nt+ii6pZbFdLFbHqFoT4THedCrguEDcczFLgnLlPSCTTsQD2tnxBTx w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: CR/3rAJpRCGompDPh0Q10w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: XSJlVfiVRzqH/LPj2X0jhA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11042"; a="19573910" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,197,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="19573910" Received: from orviesa007.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.147]) by orvoesa105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Apr 2024 13:46:50 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 1iPPyoFhTQe/FM5dMMTWNA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Du7LdhHjQwqOJ/+EwN/dog== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,197,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="21834145" Received: from zchen24-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.67.36]) ([10.209.67.36]) by orviesa007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Apr 2024 13:46:49 -0700 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:46:48 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Classify error scenarios correctly To: "Joseph, Jithu" , ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com, hdegoede@redhat.com, markgross@kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, ashok.raj@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, patches@lists.linux.dev References: <20240412172349.544064-1-jithu.joseph@intel.com> <20240412172349.544064-2-jithu.joseph@intel.com> <69d360fc-85e4-4a6d-8f08-9f90dd7ec583@linux.intel.com> <57c32cfd-136d-4c72-9f4d-12599b508fb8@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan In-Reply-To: <57c32cfd-136d-4c72-9f4d-12599b508fb8@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 >>> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck >>> Reviewe >> Code wise it looks good to me. >> >> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan >> > > Jithu -- Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Linux Kernel Developer