Re: [PATCH 1/9] EDAC/versalnet: Add NULL check for mci in handle_error()

[Shubhrajyoti Datta]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 10:10 PM Pandey, Radhey Shyam <radheys@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 7/29/2026 3:03 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:57:28PM +0530, Pandey, Radhey Shyam wrote:
> >> One clarification on DEV_UNKNOWN: on Versal NET, the driver exposes 8
> >> MC5 controller slots, but a given platform may not have all of them
> >> configured.
> >
> > Are you basically saying that you can have non-contiguous controller slots
> > present on a system?
> >
>
> In the Versal NET designs I've examined so far, configuration with fewer
> than eight MC5 controllers uses a contiguous set starting at slot 0
> (for example, slots 0-3 populated and slots 4-7 absent).
>
> I will let Shubhrajyoti comment if non-contiguous controller slots
> are possible on any supported platform?

The controllers cannot be non-contiguous.
>
> Agreed for real init failures if initialization of a controller that
> should be present fails, probe should fail and unwind all instances
> registered so far, same as amd64_edac.
>
> For v2, my proposal is (only if contiguous slot are supported):
> -Take the supported controller count from the design/DT rather than
> always iterating hardcoded NUM_CONTROLLERS(8). Though it has dependency
> on XSA support(hardware description metadata archive exported from
> Vivado) and DT binding getting accepted.
> -Run init/remove only for that range.
> -Treat DEV_UNKNOWN as a probe error with full unwind, not as a silent
> skip. Indices beyond the supported count are not probed at all.
> -Document this model in the driver.
> -The existing WARN_ON_ONCE() check in handle_error() should be
> sufficient so the current patch can be dropped.
>
> Shubhrajyoti: please chime in if I've missed anything or if you
> have a different view on this approach.
I agree we can have the controllers in the device-tree and this patch can be
dropped.

>
> Thanks,
> Radhey