On Thu, 30 Jun 2022, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 22:32:57 -0700 Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I _thought_ that we did not care if some mailboxes failed or not.
I have a different view to Dan on this. In my view if your hardware is
not working in any way at all scream like mad don't carry on... Dan
is keen to try to muddle onwards.
I am also of the idea of not carrying on upon any indication of failure.
If CDAT is not supported on any of the mailboxes found then CDAT will not show
up on sysfs (as per Dan's last comment). If it was supported on a mailbox but
no data is found the sysfs will show up but be 0 length.
At this layer I thought we agreed to skip over these errors. If a protocol is
needed at a higher layer and it is not found on any of the mailboxes the errors
should show up in that layer. In this series CDAT is not 100% necessary as
devices can work without it. So the errors were mostly paper'ed over in favor
of just printing error messages and muddle on.
The xa_insert() deserves a pci_err() though.
That's probably the minimum we should do. The xa_insert() failing is something
horrible going wrong in our software / host afterall.
Yes. And in addition, devm_cxl_pci_create_doe() should return any error status, and
cxl_pci_probe() can choose to omit any errors, but it's still better to have it.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
