On 1/28/2026 12:45 PM, Raag Jadav wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 12:21:18PM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote:
On 1/20/2026 10:31 PM, Raag Jadav wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 09:30:24AM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote:
Allocate correctable, uncorrectable nodes for every xe device
Each node contains error classes, counters and respective
query counter functions.
...
+static int hw_query_error_counter(struct xe_drm_ras_counter *info,
+ u32 error_id, const char **name, u32 *val)
+{
+ if (error_id < DRM_XE_RAS_ERROR_CLASS_GT || error_id >=
DRM_XE_RAS_ERROR_CLASS_MAX)
This looks like it can be in_range().
in_range has start+len. Should again use count here.
This seems simpler
I just had another look at this and wondering if we really need lower
bound check? error_id is already unsigned right?
added this because error_id starts from 1 and not 0.
the entire condition can be removed. This is already being checked in
the first patch
+ if (error_id < node->error_counter_range.first ||
+ error_id > node->error_counter_range.last)
+ return -EINVAL;
Will remove this in next rev
Thanks
Riana
Raag
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!info[error_id].name)
+ return -ENOENT;
+
+ *name = info[error_id].name;
+ *val = atomic64_read(&info[error_id].counter);
+
+ return 0;
+}
