[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58AC9093.5020303@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:10:11 +0000
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>
CC: christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
lenb@...nel.org, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, robert.moore@...el.com,
lv.zheng@...el.com, nkaje@...eaurora.org, zjzhang@...eaurora.org,
mark.rutland@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
eun.taik.lee@...sung.com, sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com,
labbott@...hat.com, shijie.huang@....com, rruigrok@...eaurora.org,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, tn@...ihalf.com, fu.wei@...aro.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bristot@...hat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...ica.org, Suzuki.Poulose@....com, punit.agrawal@....com,
astone@...hat.com, harba@...eaurora.org, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
john.garry@...wei.com, shiju.jose@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 07/10] efi: print unrecognized CPER section
Hi Tyler,
On 15/02/17 19:51, Tyler Baicar wrote:
> UEFI spec allows for non-standard section in Common Platform Error
> Record. This is defined in section N.2.3 of UEFI version 2.5.
>
> Currently if the CPER section's type (UUID) does not match with
> one of the section types that the kernel knows how to parse, the
> section is skipped. Therefore, user is not able to see
> such CPER data, for instance, error record of non-standard section.
>
> For above mentioned case, this change prints out the raw data in
> hex in dmesg buffer. Data length is taken from Error Data length
> field of Generic Error Data Entry.
>
> Following is a sample output from dmesg:
> [ 115.771702] {1}[Hardware Error]: Hardware error from APEI Generic Hardware Error Source: 2
> [ 115.779042] {1}[Hardware Error]: It has been corrected by h/w and requires no further action
> [ 115.787456] {1}[Hardware Error]: event severity: corrected
> [ 115.792927] {1}[Hardware Error]: Error 0, type: corrected
> [ 115.798415] {1}[Hardware Error]: fru_id: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
> [ 115.805596] {1}[Hardware Error]: fru_text:
> [ 115.816105] {1}[Hardware Error]: section type: d2e2621c-f936-468d-0d84-15a4ed015c8b
> [ 115.823880] {1}[Hardware Error]: section length: 88
> [ 115.828779] {1}[Hardware Error]: 00000000: 01000001 00000002 5f434345 525f4543
> [ 115.836153] {1}[Hardware Error]: 00000010: 0000574d 00000000 00000000 00000000
> [ 115.843531] {1}[Hardware Error]: 00000020: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> [ 115.850908] {1}[Hardware Error]: 00000030: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> [ 115.858288] {1}[Hardware Error]: 00000040: fe800000 00000000 00000004 5f434345
> [ 115.865665] {1}[Hardware Error]: 00000050: 525f4543 0000574d
The use-case for this is to capture the data and decode it with a vendor tool?
(if so, please mention that in the commit message!)
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> index c2b0a12..48cb8ee 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> @@ -591,8 +591,16 @@ static void cper_estatus_print_section(
> cper_print_proc_arm(newpfx, arm_err);
> else
> goto err_section_too_small;
> - } else
> - printk("%s""section type: unknown, %pUl\n", newpfx, sec_type);
Nit: Its odd that you remove the 'unknown' from this, but we don't get told what
it is, so surely its still unknown.
> + } else {
> + const void *unknown_err;
> +
> + unknown_err = acpi_hest_generic_data_payload(gdata);
> + printk("%ssection type: %pUl\n", newpfx, sec_type);
> + printk("%ssection length: %d\n", newpfx,
Nit: please use the "%s""section... that this file consistently uses. This means
this code will still work as expected when someone adds '%ss' support to printk!
> + gdata->error_data_length);
> + print_hex_dump(newpfx, "", DUMP_PREFIX_OFFSET, 16, 4,
> + unknown_err, gdata->error_data_length, 0);
> + }
>
> return;
FWIW:
Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Thanks,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists