Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: Refactor available_error_type_show()

[Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@amd.com>]

On 8/6/23 00:20, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> On 5/25/23 4:44 PM, Avadhut Naik wrote:
>> OSPM can discover the error injection capabilities of the platform by
>> executing GET_ERROR_TYPE error injection action.[1] The action returns
>> a DWORD representing a bitmap of platform supported error injections.[2]
>>
>> The available_error_type_show() function determines the bits set within
>> this DWORD and provides a verbose output, from einj_error_type_string
>> array, through /sys/kernel/debug/apei/einj/available_error_type file.
>>
>> The function however, assumes one to one correspondence between an error's
>> position in the bitmap and its array entry offset. Consequently, some
>> errors like Vendor Defined Error Type fail this assumption and will
>> incorrectly be shown as not supported, even if their corresponding bit is
>> set in the bitmap and they have an entry in the array.
>>
>> Navigate around the issue by converting einj_error_type_string into an
>> array of structures with a predetermined mask for all error types
>> corresponding to their bit position in the DWORD returned by GET_ERROR_TYPE
>> action. The same breaks the aforementioned assumption resulting in all
>> supported error types by a platform being outputted through the above
>> available_error_type file.
>>
>> [1] ACPI specification 6.5, Table 18.25
>> [2] ACPI specification 6.5, Table 18.30
>>
>> Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <alexey.kardashevskiy@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Avadhut Naik <Avadhut.Naik@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c
>> index 013eb621dc92..d5f8dc4df7a5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c
>> @@ -577,25 +577,25 @@ static u64 error_param2;
>>   static u64 error_param3;
>>   static u64 error_param4;
>>   static struct dentry *einj_debug_dir;
>> -static const char * const einj_error_type_string[] = {
>> -	"0x00000001\tProcessor Correctable\n",
>> -	"0x00000002\tProcessor Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00000004\tProcessor Uncorrectable fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00000008\tMemory Correctable\n",
>> -	"0x00000010\tMemory Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00000020\tMemory Uncorrectable fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00000040\tPCI Express Correctable\n",
>> -	"0x00000080\tPCI Express Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00000100\tPCI Express Uncorrectable fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00000200\tPlatform Correctable\n",
>> -	"0x00000400\tPlatform Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00000800\tPlatform Uncorrectable fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00001000\tCXL.cache Protocol Correctable\n",
>> -	"0x00002000\tCXL.cache Protocol Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00004000\tCXL.cache Protocol Uncorrectable fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00008000\tCXL.mem Protocol Correctable\n",
>> -	"0x00010000\tCXL.mem Protocol Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
>> -	"0x00020000\tCXL.mem Protocol Uncorrectable fatal\n",
>> +static struct { u32 mask; const char *str; } const einj_error_type_string[] = {
>> +	{0x00000001, "Processor Correctable"},
>> +	{0x00000002, "Processor Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
>> +	{0x00000004, "Processor Uncorrectable fatal"},
>> +	{0x00000008, "Memory Correctable"},
>> +	{0x00000010, "Memory Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
>> +	{0x00000020, "Memory Uncorrectable fatal"},
>> +	{0x00000040, "PCI Express Correctable"},
>> +	{0x00000080, "PCI Express Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
>> +	{0x00000100, "PCI Express Uncorrectable fatal"},
>> +	{0x00000200, "Platform Correctable"},
>> +	{0x00000400, "Platform Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
>> +	{0x00000800, "Platform Uncorrectable fatal"},
>> +	{0x00001000, "CXL.cache Protocol Correctable"},
>> +	{0x00002000, "CXL.cache Protocol Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
>> +	{0x00004000, "CXL.cache Protocol Uncorrectable fatal"},
>> +	{0x00008000, "CXL.mem Protocol Correctable"},
>> +	{0x00010000, "CXL.mem Protocol Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
>> +	{0x00020000, "CXL.mem Protocol Uncorrectable fatal"},
>>   };
>>
> 
> I think it'd be easier to read if the masks used the BIT() macro rather
> than a hex value.

Makes sense but I'd say because it is easier to match the APCI spec 
which uses the bit numbers, not easier to read (which is arguable).


> 
> Thanks,
> Yazen

-- 
Alexey