From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4050633A024; Fri, 31 Oct 2025 10:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761905925; cv=none; b=gV4JLTnXg3lRx+3xzJxZmEkxpPOLPlSAVbUG/oX6hgRrRGUpS9Z5tD9tOyyju3MyszVfsxSOwpVq80AB0KhhG1EpDfRLxRVBqK/vnLEICVci4iAF9u57LiAXP8ulJjhtC0rAdtQCijjTn8l0W+9wBB7IhEcXU8kjnfIALpuetA8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761905925; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ScQKh0k+g0sLHY6zzPeiiWF3Mx49kdxeKS7TZIXktok=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=oerCHwtGdqIc67mCjnve1K8p0mD5KA8pvsNKmOGmhCLiUCmx7VINWSH/jWfqLngqpeCKJ4J/f866qQMZB0CsQAFaEs0k5XshzvK+8Vb+085yewvUU/7JA431gZX9Yx3eeWOfuO4PLW34Rf9a23RdP/65PoTvrJpwCV4j6u1HUbw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=iEWEp9JC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="iEWEp9JC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1761905923; x=1793441923; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ScQKh0k+g0sLHY6zzPeiiWF3Mx49kdxeKS7TZIXktok=; b=iEWEp9JCYSCTMYEkh6+Zz1rt/s5pZ2VgFxzqpXxW+DRrRf5PNQ7aFvkL CJD25IV0pzyfoFdwYjiecfuek128+Cm918K9zI40cDnoaDdvAbIjHd+VH lByTnzpanD5vZeQ+iDwzf8rKH7k6E7TP0t4AshFxWu6xgBR+RxtWNSKoY qkkCYYOWQLEXyK562JGi39oQHfDMoRo/M8GeCJrOV7VbTEH5UrohnX4PU aH/VBCsvk5kusq7fqqhBsR+E/jlX3nrFtmTYO2v9+cGxjtf8Y712UDXAE olJqMlsOagBzm9bLb/YzPKqX4yEhtnqA9aCYBwpOkQqji7laDm5s5njJM Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: wudIQrEYThGBVwKxzKhXrw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: yP4uDmFtTxqbP1YRHiBnAw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11598"; a="63761119" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,269,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="63761119" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by orvoesa112.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Oct 2025 03:18:43 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: k25i44LyS2un9PQ5Y6ncag== X-CSE-MsgGUID: vJDIqqS8RQmFeEw6PNSdLg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,269,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="185890295" Received: from fdefranc-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO fdefranc-mobl3.localnet) ([10.245.246.56]) by fmviesa007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Oct 2025 03:18:30 -0700 From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown , Tony Luck , Borislav Petkov , Hanjun Guo , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Shuai Xue , Davidlohr Bueso , Dave Jiang , Alison Schofield , Vishal Verma , Ira Weiny , Dan Williams , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Oliver O'Halloran , Bjorn Helgaas , Sunil V L , Xiaofei Tan , Mario Limonciello , Huacai Chen , Heinrich Schuchardt , Arnd Bergmann , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Guo Weikang , Xin Li , Will Deacon , Huang Yiwei , Gavin Shan , Smita Koralahalli , Uwe =?UTF-8?B?S2xlaW5lLUvDtm5pZw==?= , Li Ming , Ilpo =?UTF-8?B?SsOkcnZpbmVu?= , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , Karolina Stolarek , Jon Pan-Doh , Lukas Wunner , Shiju Jose , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6 v6] ACPI: extlog: Trace CPER PCI Express Error Section Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:18:27 +0100 Message-ID: <2351924.vFx2qVVIhK@fdefranc-mobl3> In-Reply-To: <20251028144816.000018a3@huawei.com> References: <20251023122612.1326748-1-fabio.m.de.francesco@linux.intel.com> <20251023122612.1326748-3-fabio.m.de.francesco@linux.intel.com> <20251028144816.000018a3@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 3:48:16=E2=80=AFPM Central European Standard T= ime Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 14:25:37 +0200 > "Fabio M. De Francesco" wrote: >=20 > > I/O Machine Check Architecture events may signal failing PCIe components > > or links. The AER event contains details on what was happening on the w= ire > > when the error was signaled. > >=20 > > Trace the CPER PCIe Error section (UEFI v2.10, Appendix N.2.7) reported > > by the I/O MCA. > >=20 > > Cc: Dan Williams > > Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco > Hi Fabio, >=20 > Was taking a fresh look at this as a precursor to looking at later > patches in series and spotted something that I'm doubtful about. >=20 > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c > > index 47d11cb5c912..cefe8d2d8aff 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c > > @@ -132,6 +132,34 @@ static int print_extlog_rcd(const char *pfx, > > return 1; > > } > > =20 > > +static void extlog_print_pcie(struct cper_sec_pcie *pcie_err, > > + int severity) > > +{ > > + struct aer_capability_regs *aer; > > + struct pci_dev *pdev; > > + unsigned int devfn; > > + unsigned int bus; > > + int aer_severity; > > + int domain; > > + > > + if (!(pcie_err->validation_bits & CPER_PCIE_VALID_DEVICE_ID || > > + pcie_err->validation_bits & CPER_PCIE_VALID_AER_INFO)) >=20 > Looking again, I'm not sure this is as intended. Is the aim to > allow for either one of these two? Or check that that are both present?= =20 > That is should it be !(A && B) rather than !(A || B)? >=20 Hi Jonathan, You're right. We need to check that both are true and return if they are=20 not, then the statement has to be !(A && B). Thank you, =46abio=20 >=20 > > + return; > > + > > + aer_severity =3D cper_severity_to_aer(severity); > > + aer =3D (struct aer_capability_regs *)pcie_err->aer_info; > > + domain =3D pcie_err->device_id.segment; > > + bus =3D pcie_err->device_id.bus; > > + devfn =3D PCI_DEVFN(pcie_err->device_id.device, > > + pcie_err->device_id.function); > > + pdev =3D pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(domain, bus, devfn); > > + if (!pdev) > > + return; > > + > > + pci_print_aer(pdev, aer_severity, aer); > > + pci_dev_put(pdev); > > +} >=20 >=20