[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k0b8q1px.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:31:38 -0500
From: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] PCI hotplug: rpaphp: Error out on busy status from
get-sensor-state
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:07:39PM +0530, Mahesh Salgaonkar wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * RTAS call get-sensor-state(DR_ENTITY_SENSE) return values as per PAPR:
>> + * -1: Hardware Error
>> + * -2: RTAS_BUSY
>> + * -3: Invalid sensor. RTAS Parameter Error.
>> + * -9000: Need DR entity to be powered up and unisolated before RTAS call
>> + * -9001: Need DR entity to be powered up, but not unisolated, before RTAS call
>> + * -9002: DR entity unusable
>> + * 990x: Extended delay - where x is a number in the range of 0-5
>> + */
>> +#define RTAS_HARDWARE_ERROR (-1)
>> +#define RTAS_INVALID_SENSOR (-3)
>> +#define SLOT_UNISOLATED (-9000)
>> +#define SLOT_NOT_UNISOLATED (-9001)
>
> I would say "isolated" instead of "not unisolated", but I suppose this
> follows language in the spec. If so, you should follow the spec.
"not unisolated" is the spec language.
>> +#define SLOT_NOT_USABLE (-9002)
>> +
>> +static int rtas_to_errno(int rtas_rc)
>> +{
>> + int rc;
>> +
>> + switch (rtas_rc) {
>> + case RTAS_HARDWARE_ERROR:
>> + rc = -EIO;
>> + break;
>> + case RTAS_INVALID_SENSOR:
>> + rc = -EINVAL;
>> + break;
>> + case SLOT_UNISOLATED:
>> + case SLOT_NOT_UNISOLATED:
>> + rc = -EFAULT;
>> + break;
>> + case SLOT_NOT_USABLE:
>> + rc = -ENODEV;
>> + break;
>> + case RTAS_BUSY:
>> + case RTAS_EXTENDED_DELAY_MIN...RTAS_EXTENDED_DELAY_MAX:
>> + rc = -EBUSY;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + err("%s: unexpected RTAS error %d\n", __func__, rtas_rc);
>> + rc = -ERANGE;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + return rc;
>
> This basically duplicates rtas_error_rc(). Why do we need two copies?
It treats RTAS_BUSY, RTAS_EXTENDED_DELAY_MIN...RTAS_EXTENDED_DELAY_MAX
differently, which is part of the point of this change.
Aside: rtas_error_rc() (from powerpc's rtas.c) is badly named. Its
conversions make sense for only a handful of RTAS calls. RTAS error
codes have function-specific interpretations.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists