Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 1/7] drm/i915/guc: Add basic support for error capture lists

[Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>]

On 23.11.2021 00:03, Alan Previn wrote:
> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
...

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> index 77fbcd8730ee..0bfc92b1b982 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> @@ -4003,6 +4003,24 @@ int intel_guc_context_reset_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +int intel_guc_error_capture_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc,
> +					 const u32 *msg, u32 len)
> +{
> +	int status;

likely it should be "u32" as few lines below you're using msg[0];

> +
> +	if (unlikely(len != 1)) {
> +		drm_dbg(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm, "Invalid length %u", len);

any error returned by the CTB message handler will trigger full dump of
unexpected message - do we really need this unlikely dbg message here ?

> +		return -EPROTO;
> +	}
> +
> +	status = msg[0];
> +	drm_info(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm, "Got error capture: status = %d", status);

IIRC all notification status are defined in GuC spec in hex, so maybe we
should also print it as %#x ?

-Michal

> +
> +	/* Add extraction of error capture dump */
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static struct intel_engine_cs *
>  guc_lookup_engine(struct intel_guc *guc, u8 guc_class, u8 instance)
>  {
>