On 04/28/2018 11:46 AM, Alex G. wrote:
On 04/27/2018 05:43 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:09:43PM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
(snip)
+ memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info));
+ info.severity = aer_severity;
+ info.status = status;
+ info.mask = mask;
+ info.first_error = 0x1f;
I like this patch a lot, but where does this "first_error = 0x1f" come
from?
aer_(un)correctable_error_string don't go to [0x1f], so this guarantees
us we don't print "(First)".
I assume this is supposed to be the "First Error Pointer" in the
Advanced Error Capabilities and Control register (PCIe r4.0, sec
7.8.4.7). There is a "cap_control" field in struct
aer_capability_regs; should we be using that here?
There is a way to extract it from the PCI regs, and it's quite simple.
IIRC, it should be all f's when the capability is not implemented. I
wanted to avoid any further parsing of PCI regs in this patch.
I could update the offending line to say:
+ info.first_error = PCI_ERR_CAP_FEP(aer->cap_control);
Though I still have the concerns with validating CPER data:
I can see a way to use even more common printk code, but that requires
validating the PCI regs we get from firmware. That means we need to make
a guarantee about CPER that is beyond the scope of this patch.
Alex
