On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 09:14:06AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > 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. I don't think this adds anything. If devm_cxl_pci_create_doe() already prints error messages what is cxl_pci_probe() going to do with the error if it does not fail the probe? I want devm_cxl_pci_create_doe() to continue trying to create the mailbox objects. So for now I'm going to print the errors in devm_cxl_pci_create_doe() and keep going without returning any error. Ira > > Thanks, > Davidlohr
