On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:09:43PM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
> On errors reported from CPER, cper_print_bits() was used to log the
> AER bits. This resulted in hard-to-understand messages, without a
> prefix. Instead use __aer_print_error() for both native AER and CPER
> to provide a more consistent log format.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
> b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
> index cfc89dd57831..cfae4d52f848 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
> @@ -216,28 +216,30 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cper_severity_to_aer);
> void cper_print_aer(struct pci_dev *dev, int aer_severity,
> struct aer_capability_regs *aer)
> {
> - int layer, agent, status_strs_size, tlp_header_valid = 0;
> + int layer, agent, tlp_header_valid = 0;
> u32 status, mask;
> - const char **status_strs;
> + struct aer_err_info info;
>
> if (aer_severity == AER_CORRECTABLE) {
> status = aer->cor_status;
> mask = aer->cor_mask;
> - status_strs = aer_correctable_error_string;
> - status_strs_size = ARRAY_SIZE(aer_correctable_error_string);
> } else {
> status = aer->uncor_status;
> mask = aer->uncor_mask;
> - status_strs = aer_uncorrectable_error_string;
> - status_strs_size = ARRAY_SIZE(aer_uncorrectable_error_string);
> tlp_header_valid = status & AER_LOG_TLP_MASKS;
> }
>
> layer = AER_GET_LAYER_ERROR(aer_severity, status);
> agent = AER_GET_AGENT(aer_severity, status);
>
> + memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info));
> + info.severity = aer_severity;
> + info.status = status;
> + info.mask = mask;
> + info.first_error = 0x1f;
I like this patch a lot, but where does this "first_error = 0x1f" come
from?
I assume this is supposed to be the "First Error Pointer" in the
Advanced Error Capabilities and Control register (PCIe r4.0, sec
7.8.4.7). There is a "cap_control" field in struct
aer_capability_regs; should we be using that here?
> +
> pci_err(dev, "aer_status: 0x%08x, aer_mask: 0x%08x\n", status, mask);
> - cper_print_bits("", status, status_strs, status_strs_size);
> + __aer_print_error(dev, &info);
> pci_err(dev, "aer_layer=%s, aer_agent=%s\n",
> aer_error_layer[layer], aer_agent_string[agent]);
>
> --
> 2.14.3
>
