Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: Refactor available_error_type_show()

[Yazen Ghannam]

On 5/25/23 4:44 PM, Avadhut Naik wrote:
> OSPM can discover the error injection capabilities of the platform by
> executing GET_ERROR_TYPE error injection action.[1] The action returns
> a DWORD representing a bitmap of platform supported error injections.[2]
> 
> The available_error_type_show() function determines the bits set within
> this DWORD and provides a verbose output, from einj_error_type_string
> array, through /sys/kernel/debug/apei/einj/available_error_type file.
> 
> The function however, assumes one to one correspondence between an error's
> position in the bitmap and its array entry offset. Consequently, some
> errors like Vendor Defined Error Type fail this assumption and will
> incorrectly be shown as not supported, even if their corresponding bit is
> set in the bitmap and they have an entry in the array.
> 
> Navigate around the issue by converting einj_error_type_string into an
> array of structures with a predetermined mask for all error types
> corresponding to their bit position in the DWORD returned by GET_ERROR_TYPE
> action. The same breaks the aforementioned assumption resulting in all
> supported error types by a platform being outputted through the above
> available_error_type file.
> 
> [1] ACPI specification 6.5, Table 18.25
> [2] ACPI specification 6.5, Table 18.30
> 
> Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <alexey.kardashevskiy@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Avadhut Naik <Avadhut.Naik@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c
> index 013eb621dc92..d5f8dc4df7a5 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c
> @@ -577,25 +577,25 @@ static u64 error_param2;
>  static u64 error_param3;
>  static u64 error_param4;
>  static struct dentry *einj_debug_dir;
> -static const char * const einj_error_type_string[] = {
> -	"0x00000001\tProcessor Correctable\n",
> -	"0x00000002\tProcessor Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
> -	"0x00000004\tProcessor Uncorrectable fatal\n",
> -	"0x00000008\tMemory Correctable\n",
> -	"0x00000010\tMemory Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
> -	"0x00000020\tMemory Uncorrectable fatal\n",
> -	"0x00000040\tPCI Express Correctable\n",
> -	"0x00000080\tPCI Express Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
> -	"0x00000100\tPCI Express Uncorrectable fatal\n",
> -	"0x00000200\tPlatform Correctable\n",
> -	"0x00000400\tPlatform Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
> -	"0x00000800\tPlatform Uncorrectable fatal\n",
> -	"0x00001000\tCXL.cache Protocol Correctable\n",
> -	"0x00002000\tCXL.cache Protocol Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
> -	"0x00004000\tCXL.cache Protocol Uncorrectable fatal\n",
> -	"0x00008000\tCXL.mem Protocol Correctable\n",
> -	"0x00010000\tCXL.mem Protocol Uncorrectable non-fatal\n",
> -	"0x00020000\tCXL.mem Protocol Uncorrectable fatal\n",
> +static struct { u32 mask; const char *str; } const einj_error_type_string[] = {
> +	{0x00000001, "Processor Correctable"},
> +	{0x00000002, "Processor Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
> +	{0x00000004, "Processor Uncorrectable fatal"},
> +	{0x00000008, "Memory Correctable"},
> +	{0x00000010, "Memory Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
> +	{0x00000020, "Memory Uncorrectable fatal"},
> +	{0x00000040, "PCI Express Correctable"},
> +	{0x00000080, "PCI Express Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
> +	{0x00000100, "PCI Express Uncorrectable fatal"},
> +	{0x00000200, "Platform Correctable"},
> +	{0x00000400, "Platform Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
> +	{0x00000800, "Platform Uncorrectable fatal"},
> +	{0x00001000, "CXL.cache Protocol Correctable"},
> +	{0x00002000, "CXL.cache Protocol Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
> +	{0x00004000, "CXL.cache Protocol Uncorrectable fatal"},
> +	{0x00008000, "CXL.mem Protocol Correctable"},
> +	{0x00010000, "CXL.mem Protocol Uncorrectable non-fatal"},
> +	{0x00020000, "CXL.mem Protocol Uncorrectable fatal"},
>  };
>

I think it'd be easier to read if the masks used the BIT() macro rather
than a hex value.

Thanks,
Yazen