Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:19:51 +0000
From:   Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <nchatrad@amd.com>,
        linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@kernel.org,
        Muralidhara M K <muralimk@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] EDAC/amd64: Enumerate memory on noncpu nodes
Message-ID: <YT+WRx9Y2W+GRymJ@yaz-ubuntu>
References: <20210806074350.114614-4-nchatrad@amd.com>
 <20210823185437.94417-1-nchatrad@amd.com>
 <20210823185437.94417-4-nchatrad@amd.com>
 <YSjM8b9vvkmRew94@zn.tnic>
 <YS/JkgWA8VreIx1R@yaz-ubuntu>
 <YTkD6iy9JhwetSYU@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YTkD6iy9JhwetSYU@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?6QG/u8rHSIxv2Fbn38FoPqKv1o50EydOJ0crY3hiC+w4oabwMiWYgMrwTzkc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?T9MXUJAvAXABHhBBMZNdHbmeoUmmbVB3S4ee6LTiprWLn+UuXQLCGOFN6ZKc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?pe2xPUSXQfYoWuojyMKnxHm+o0qoetQHQqggio+zZbNUokz7nS52eidfcVWU?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?welgHMABLqloMsMCpzxou5xsz34reJnSOtK9jw6CH69MXihs2JhGloxrUXwF?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?a/15yxeDgWBpTr0USHv4FlHIMpWVImnDsxXhB7/0wHoMiunqRltka/Amf0RV?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?75N7whAzK0F/kzqb6bej59kUDYhgP6/askLN/mmLmeQYTF1hxIa6HEK5lHny?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?lfd6h3xsuMu4wHX05KLEopIsm/f6dw92UbcHmn1dVF4c3wBTSpowt+XDd+qp?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Tmxksn7uiBXwk4IYwtWQdOwFWAFQID0QNf47GiQddxWX5nKiHuZJt12eI4uJ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?kvgYVgkC5NRT4HDconQsf4VD7O1l0AnI4uqgPtwD3S0bvc/8t9mqqedPPFkr?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?slLjQOITr8mF0MVRS2iMi6rMqQhtuiTlGnyKq+IIy0b3wA3K43bQsDicboEJ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?M+9C2CV8HR2wk469l/rVKAO/HbMR8Cp6VWqmbcGRObR4rFEkYPj00IaGNRb3?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?bH3YY/9dSSgoXCgoKOGFQ1OWHnCPpYOugIgVHtEgraXzJnr6WDoZ5Pw0hh+R?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Ey9i2Vpli+mo6CTuRw7UrOfXYjiypI09fVkCwPOS4tNRztTCBhAxp5VkzFqN?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?EJfLIlCM3kexxlxHQ3nDrJPNY6QNA3v808N57fltHFb2+E7oRte82Z+nqQ17?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ig8f61lJgK/0vHGguh19OShNOKWtvfDntAY1G7su4z5/6BUZCFzXsLfNWVGU?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?m5V/8q3I1sbswM8gue5AMB5tK8ZgFyT7GlOCKEz0/aHgJCdXsvW/DrpaErWc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?azU3biD2LdoFhWQMeX3osfOXuk5dMn19iBQcBU01+W2qLngjuVpxNP4Ka+Ff?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?tY2TqjpVpkRbK9ZQqBwBoA9lJ5+Pem7zibnryzd94x1h+ihqE+M3kE6kmYbO?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?mqe25ldo9QZvhaaajm5zZwZDbBwz04GfHSW4X4bsMFU4cNPze4ufSj4we+qV?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Oza7BRqo/U8IyG7svGyZFacUUo2p8kLNMfQiacJ7CRL9jzHgW1vKUy1q4O9U?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?FrNA8oifIeRR4sxLvpKIyGfjh4C++7V9YTjQsq4rK1/V2+sqN4BIeV3rn9nx?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?nz/aZ5UCVO7wTTFafWGonRqeJ04c69z6gXScxqF4Jo/2y7SVdghXiRzEIyw8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?UGLNhxYh6chrscVVPw2ZVrFe?=
X-OriginatorOrg: amd.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7873005d-243c-4e2a-b7ba-08d976e31907
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8PR12MB3108.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Sep 2021 18:20:00.0814
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: Gz+r0q4TolY5xM8t9E088ZC4vcoFGld3FAMYqrGfDLwPoMojXulxTEH+TU+2sEdYkcfYz+PVK/kB0vxAWplVYQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN8PR12MB3539
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 08:41:46PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:42:26PM +0000, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> > err.channel still needs to be used in error_address_to_page_and_offset()
> > below.
> 
> I think you mean __log_ecc_error().
>

Yep, you're right.
 
> > This is a good idea. But we have a global *fam_type, so this should be moved
> > into struct amd64_pvt, if possible. Then each node can have its own fam_type.
> 
> per_family_init() does assign stuff to pvt members so yes, we're saying
> the same thing, practically.
> 
> > Fair point. I like the idea of having unique names though. Is this possible
> > with the current EDAC framework? Or is it not worth it?
> 
> We don't have unique names for the CPU nodes:
> 
> [   25.637486] EDAC MC0: Giving out device to module amd64_edac controller F17h_M30h: DEV 0000:00:18.3 (INTERRUPT)
> [   25.799554] EDAC MC1: Giving out device to module amd64_edac controller F17h_M30h: DEV 0000:00:19.3 (INTERRUPT)
> 
> why does it matter to have unique names for the accelerators?
> 
> If you wanna differentiate them, you can dump the PCI devs like above.
> 
> Just to make it clear - I'm not against it per-se - I'd just need a
> stronger justification for doing this than just "I like the idea".
>

There isn't a strong reason at the moment. I think it may be one less hurdle
for users to go through when identifying a device. But, as you said, there are
other ways to differentiate devices.

Thanks,
Yazen