Hi Raag,
Thank you for your patch.
Em 28/11/2024 12:37, Raag Jadav escreveu:
[...]
+int drm_dev_wedged_event(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned long method)
+{
+ const char *recovery = NULL;
+ unsigned int len, opt;
+ /* Event string length up to 28+ characters with available methods */
+ char event_string[32];
+ char *envp[] = { event_string, NULL };
+
+ len = scnprintf(event_string, sizeof(event_string), "%s", "WEDGED=");
+
+ for_each_set_bit(opt, &method, BITS_PER_TYPE(method)) {
+ recovery = drm_get_wedge_recovery(opt);
+ if (drm_WARN(dev, !recovery, "device wedged, invalid recovery method %u\n", opt))
+ break;
+
+ len += scnprintf(event_string + len, sizeof(event_string), "%s,", recovery);
+ }
+
+ if (recovery)
+ /* Get rid of trailing comma */
+ event_string[len - 1] = '\0';
+ else
+ /* Caller is unsure about recovery, do the best we can at this point. */
+ snprintf(event_string, sizeof(event_string), "%s", "WEDGED=unknown");
+
+ drm_info(dev, "device wedged, needs recovery\n");
As documented in the commit message "No explicit device recovery is
expected from the consumer in this case", I think this should be like this:
if (method != DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_NONE)
drm_info(dev, "device wedged, needs recovery\n");
and maybe a note like this:
else
drm_info(dev, "device reseted, but managed to recover\n");
Either way, this patch is:
Reviewed-by: André Almeida <andrealmeid@xxxxxxxxxx>
