On 6/27/2025 5:24 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 17:42:40 -0500
> Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> CXL error handling will soon be moved from the AER driver into the CXL
>> driver. This requires a notification mechanism for the AER driver to share
>> the AER interrupt with the CXL driver. The notification will be used
>> as an indication for the CXL drivers to handle and log the CXL RAS errors.
>>
>> First, introduce cxl/core/native_ras.c to contain changes for the CXL
>> driver's RAS native handling. This as an alternative to dropping the
>> changes into existing cxl/core/ras.c file with purpose to avoid #ifdefs.
>> Introduce CXL Kconfig CXL_NATIVE_RAS, dependent on PCIEAER_CXL, to
>> conditionally compile the new file.
>>
>> Add a kfifo work queue to be used by the AER driver and CXL driver. The AER
>> driver will be the sole kfifo producer adding work and the cxl_core will be
>> the sole kfifo consumer removing work. Add the boilerplate kfifo support.
>>
>> Add CXL work queue handler registration functions in the AER driver. Export
>> the functions allowing CXL driver to access. Implement registration
>> functions for the CXL driver to assign or clear the work handler function.
>>
>> Introduce 'struct cxl_proto_err_info' to serve as the kfifo work data. This
>> will contain the erring device's PCI SBDF details used to rediscover the
>> device after the CXL driver dequeues the kfifo work. The device rediscovery
>> will be introduced along with the CXL handling in future patches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@xxxxxxx>
> Hi Terry,
>
> Whilst it obviously makes patch preparation a bit more time consuming
> for series like this with many patches it can be useful to add a brief
> change log to the individual patches as well as the cover letter.
> That helps reviewers figure out where they need to look again.
>
> A few trivial things inline.
>
> With those fixed up
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
Do you have an example you can point me to with a change log in the
individual patch? I want to make certain I change correctly.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/cxl/Kconfig | 14 ++++++++
>> drivers/cxl/core/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/cxl/core/core.h | 8 +++++
>> drivers/cxl/core/native_ras.c | 26 +++++++++++++++
>> drivers/cxl/core/port.c | 2 ++
>> drivers/cxl/core/ras.c | 1 +
>> drivers/cxl/cxlpci.h | 1 +
>> drivers/pci/pci.h | 4 +++
>> drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 7 ++--
>> drivers/pci/pcie/cxl_aer.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/aer.h | 31 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 11 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 drivers/cxl/core/native_ras.c
>
>> static void cxl_cper_trace_corr_port_prot_err(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/cxlpci.h b/drivers/cxl/cxlpci.h
>> index 54e219b0049e..6f1396ef7b77 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cxl/cxlpci.h
>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/cxlpci.h
>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>> #define __CXL_PCI_H__
>> #include <linux/pci.h>
>> #include "cxl.h"
>> +#include "linux/aer.h"
> Why? There are no changes in this header other than the include and the changes
> to linux/aer.h are new stuff so I can't see how it becomes necessary if it
> wasn't before.
>
> Might well have always been missing and should have been here. If so separate
> patch to tidy that up.
You're correct, this can be removed and added later.
>>
>> #define CXL_MEMORY_PROGIF 0x10
>>
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/cxl_aer.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/cxl_aer.c
>> index b2ea14f70055..846ab55d747c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/cxl_aer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/cxl_aer.c
>> static int cxl_rch_handle_error_iter(struct pci_dev *dev, void *data)
>> {
>> struct aer_err_info *info = (struct aer_err_info *)data;
>> @@ -136,3 +152,47 @@ void cxl_rch_enable_rcec(struct pci_dev *rcec)
>> pci_info(rcec, "CXL: Internal errors unmasked");
>> }
>>
>> +static DEFINE_KFIFO(cxl_proto_err_fifo, struct cxl_proto_err_work_data,
>> + CXL_ERROR_SOURCES_MAX);
>> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cxl_proto_err_fifo_lock);
>> +struct work_struct *cxl_proto_err_work;
> I'm not seeing a declaration for this in the headers, so can it be static?
>
> This is made a little more confusing as in this patch we have both
> a structure called cxl_proto_err_work and a pointer to it with exactly the
> same name. Maybe rename this so it's subtly different. cxl_protocol_err_work
> or something silly like that just to make reviewers life a tiny bit easier!
Yes, I'll make 'static' and rename to be cxl_protocol_err_work.
>> +
>> diff --git a/include/linux/aer.h b/include/linux/aer.h
>> index 02940be66324..24c3d9e18ad5 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/aer.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/aer.h
>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>
>> #include <linux/errno.h>
>> #include <linux/types.h>
>> +#include <linux/workqueue_types.h>
>>
>> #define AER_NONFATAL 0
>> #define AER_FATAL 1
>> @@ -53,6 +54,26 @@ struct aer_capability_regs {
>> u16 uncor_err_source;
>> };
>>
>> +/**
>> + * struct cxl_proto_err_info - Error information used in CXL error handling
>> + * @severity: AER severity
>> + * @function: Device's PCI function
> Run kernel-doc over the files and fix errors / warning.
> Missed updating this to devfn which it would have shouted about.
I haven't used kernel-doc, obviously. :) Ill add that to the list of checks before sending. Thanks.
-Terry
>> + * @device: Device's PCI device
>> + * @bus: Device's PCI bus
>> + * @segment: Device's PCI segment
>> + */
>> +struct cxl_proto_error_info {
>> + int severity;
>> +
>> + u8 devfn;
>> + u8 bus;
>> + u16 segment;
>> +};
