Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/xe/ras: Report CSC errors using SIGID
Michal Wajdeczko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.freedesktop.lists.intel-xe |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/12/2026 1:52 AM, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote: > Use xe_log_err() to report CSC errors using SIGID. > > Signed-off-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c > index d1aa3794f2e0..e50ab49bce5a 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c > @@ -283,9 +283,8 @@ static u8 handle_soc_internal_errors(struct xe_device *xe, struct xe_ras_error_a > * is required. > */ > if (csc_error->hec_fw_error) { > - xe_err(xe, "[RAS]: CSC %s detected: 0x%x\n", > - sev_to_str(counter->common.severity), > - csc_error->hec_fw_error); > + xe_log_err(xe, SOC, 0, "[RAS]: CSC %s detected: 0x%x\n", > + sev_to_str(counter->common.severity), csc_error->hec_fw_error); hmm, it was assumed that for HW errors we will use 12 byte data while xe_log_err is mostly for the SW errors where we use errno do we still need to use "RAS" prefix ? maybe we should add component XE_LOG_COMPONENT_CSC with SIGID_SOC_INTERNAL ? shouldn't we use common.severity to select right xe_log/CPER severity ? > xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable(xe); > return XE_RAS_RECOVERY_ACTION_DISCONNECT; > }