> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:24 PM > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 02:50:05AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:37 AM > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 08:34:58AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 4:30 PM > > > > > > > > > > On 2023/11/20 16:09, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > >> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 9:07 PM > > > > > >> + * @req_len: Length (in bytes) of a request entry in the request > array > > > > > >> + * @req_num: Input the number of cache invalidation requests in > the > > > > > array. > > > > > >> + * Output the number of requests successfully handled by > > > kernel. > > > > > >> + * @out_driver_error_code: Report a driver speicifc error code > upon > > > > > failure. > > > > > >> + * It's optional, driver has a choice to fill it or > > > > > >> + * not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Being optional how does the user tell whether the code is filled or > not? > > > > > > Well, naming it "error_code" indicates zero means no error while > > > non-zero means something? An error return from this ioctl could > > > also tell the user space to look up for this driver error code, > > > if it ever cares. > > > > probably over-thinking but I'm not sure whether zero is guaranteed to > > mean no error in all implementations... > > Well, you are right. Usually HW conveniently raises a flag in a > register to indicate something wrong, yet it is probably unsafe > to say it definitely. > this reminds me one open. What about an implementation having a hierarchical error code layout e.g. one main error register with each bit representing an error category then multiple error code registers each for one error category? In this case probably a single out_driver_error_code cannot carry that raw information. Instead the iommu driver may need to define a customized error code convention in uapi header which is converted from the raw error information. >From this angle should we simply say that the error code definition must be included in the uapi header? If raw error information can be carried by this field then this hw can simply say that the error code format is same as the hw spec defines. With that explicit information then the viommu can easily tell whether error code is filled or not based on its own convention.
