Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/xe/ras: Report CSC errors using SIGID

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 09:52:22PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
>
>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

Not sure I understand what the 12 bytes data is.

>
>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 ?

Not sure how to use this macro to do that though. I thought severity was 
automatically handled in the backend.

Thanks,
Umesh
>
>>  			xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable(xe);
>>  			return XE_RAS_RECOVERY_ACTION_DISCONNECT;
>>  		}
>