On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 06:38:46 +0100 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Em Wed, 13 Nov 2019 23:16:23 +0800 > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > As CCIX Request Agents have fully cache coherent caches, > > the CCIX 1.0 Base Specification defines detailed error > > reporting for these caches. > > > > A CCIX cache error is reported via a CPER record as defined in the > > UEFI 2.8 specification. The PER log section is defined in the > > CCIX 1.0 Base Specification. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- ... > > +static int cper_ccix_cache_err_details(const char *pfx, > > + struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata) > > +{ > > + struct cper_ccix_cache_error *full_cache_err; > > + struct cper_sec_ccix_cache_error *cache_err; > > + u16 vendor_data_len; > > + int i; > > + > > + if (gdata->error_data_length < sizeof(*full_cache_err)) > > + return -ENOSPC; > > + > > + full_cache_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata); > > + > > + cache_err = &full_cache_err->cache_record; > > + > > + if (cache_err->validation_bits & CCIX_CACHE_ERR_TYPE_VALID) > > + printk("%s""Cache Type: %s\n", pfx, > > + cper_ccix_cache_type_str(cache_err->cache_type)); > > + > > + if (cache_err->validation_bits & CCIX_CACHE_ERR_OP_VALID) > > + printk("%s""Operation: %s\n", pfx, > > + cper_ccix_cache_err_op_str(cache_err->op_type)); > > + > > + if (cache_err->validation_bits & CCIX_CACHE_ERR_CACHE_ERR_TYPE_VALID) > > + printk("%s""Cache Error Type: %s\n", pfx, > > + cper_ccix_cache_err_type_str(cache_err->cache_error_type)); > > + > > + if (cache_err->validation_bits & CCIX_CACHE_ERR_LEVEL_VALID) > > + printk("%s""Level: %d\n", pfx, cache_err->cache_level); > > + > > + if (cache_err->validation_bits & CCIX_CACHE_ERR_SET_VALID) > > + printk("%s""Set: %d\n", pfx, cache_err->set); > > + > > + if (cache_err->validation_bits & CCIX_CACHE_ERR_WAY_VALID) > > + printk("%s""Way: %d\n", pfx, cache_err->way); > > + > > + if (cache_err->validation_bits & CCIX_CACHE_ERR_INSTANCE_ID_VALID) > > + printk("%s""Instance ID: %d\n", pfx, cache_err->instance); > > + > > + if (cache_err->validation_bits & CCIX_CACHE_ERR_VENDOR_DATA_VALID) { > > + if (gdata->error_data_length < sizeof(*full_cache_err) + 4) > > + return -ENOSPC; > > + > > + vendor_data_len = cache_err->vendor_data[0] & GENMASK(15, 0); > > + if (gdata->error_data_length < > > + sizeof(*full_cache_err) + vendor_data_len) > > + return -ENOSPC; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < vendor_data_len / 4 - 1; i++) > > + printk("%s""Vendor%d: 0x%08x\n", pfx, i, > > + cache_err->vendor_data[i + 1]); > > I forgot to comment this at patch 1/6, as this is more a reflection > than asking for a change... > > Not sure what's the value of also printing events to the Kernel logs. > > I mean, we do that for existent RAS drivers, mainly because the RAS report > mechanism came after the printks, and someone could be relying at the > kernel logs instead of using rasdaemon (or some other alternative software > someone might write). > > For new report mechanisms, perhaps we could be smarter - at least offering > ways to disable the printks if a daemon is listening to the trace events. > > Boris/Tony: what do you think? > Indeed, seems like a sensible time to make such a change if people agree it makes sense to do so. I'll leave this for now and get a v5 out with the fixes you mention. > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + .... > > > Cheers, > Mauro