[PATCH v4 1/9] drm: Add a vendor-specific recovery method to device wedged uevent

Riana Tauro riana.tauro at intel.com
Fri Jul 11 05:17:39 UTC 2025 


On 7/11/2025 3:16 AM, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 03:00:06PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 01:24:52PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:37:14AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>> On 10.07.25 11:01, Simona Vetter wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 12:52:05PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 05:18:54PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 04:09:20PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09.07.25 15:41, Simona Vetter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 04:50:13PM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Certain errors can cause the device to be wedged and may
>>>>>>>>>> require a vendor specific recovery method to restore normal
>>>>>>>>>> operation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Add a recovery method 'WEDGED=vendor-specific' for such errors. Vendors
>>>>>>>>>> must provide additional recovery documentation if this method
>>>>>>>>>> is used.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v2: fix documentation (Raag)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: André Almeida <andrealmeid at igalia.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: David Airlie <airlied at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: <dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Suggested-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav at intel.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro at intel.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not really understanding what this is useful for, maybe concrete
>>>>>>>>> example in the form of driver code that uses this, and some tool or
>>>>>>>>> documentation steps that should be taken for recovery?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The case here is when FW underneath identified something badly corrupted on
>>>>>> FW land and decided that only a firmware-flashing could solve the day and
>>>>>> raise interrupt to the driver. At that point we want to wedge, but immediately
>>>>>> hint the admin the recommended action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The recovery method for this particular case is to flash in a new firmware.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issues I'm seeing here is that eventually we'll get different
>>>>>>>>> vendor-specific recovery steps, and maybe even on the same device, and
>>>>>>>>> that leads us to an enumeration issue. Since it's just a string and an
>>>>>>>>> enum I think it'd be better to just allocate a new one every time there's
>>>>>>>>> a new strange recovery method instead of this opaque approach.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what we discussed so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I missed that context.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The original idea was to add a firmware-flush recovery method which
>>>>>>>> looked a bit wage since it didn't give any information on what to do
>>>>>>>> exactly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why I suggested to add a more generic vendor-specific event
>>>>>>>> with refers to the documentation and system log to see what actually
>>>>>>>> needs to be done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Otherwise we would end up with events like firmware-flash, update FW
>>>>>>>> image A, update FW image B, FW version mismatch etc....
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that's kinda what I expect to happen, and we have enough numbers for
>>>>> this all to not be an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree. Any newly allocated method that is specific to a vendor is going to
>>>>>>> be opaque anyway, since it can't be generic for all drivers. This just helps
>>>>>>> reduce the noise in DRM core.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yes, there could be different vendor-specific cases for the same driver
>>>>>>> and the driver should be able to provide the means to distinguish between
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sim, what's your take on this then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we get back to the original idea of firmware-flash?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe intel-firmware-flash or something, meaning prefix with the vendor?
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I think it should be specific is because I'm assuming you want
>>>>> to script this. And if you have a big fleet with different vendors, then
>>>>> "vendor-specific" doesn't tell you enough. But if it's something like
>>>>> $vendor-$magic_step then it does become scriptable, and we do have have a
>>>>> place to put some documentation on what you should do instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the point of this interface isn't that it's scriptable, then I'm not
>>>>> sure why it needs to be an uevent?
>>>>
>>>> You should probably read up on the previous discussion, cause that is exactly what I asked as well :)
>>>>
>>>> And no, it should *not* be scripted. That would be a bit brave for a firmware update where you should absolutely not power down the system for example.
>>
>> I also don't like the idea or even the thought of scripting something like
>> a firmware-flash. But only to fail with a better pin point to make admin
>> lives easier with a notification.
>>
>>>>
>>>> In my understanding the new value "vendor-specific" basically means it is a known issue with a documented solution, while "unknown" means the driver has no idea how to solve it.
>>
>> Exactly, the hardware and firmware are giving the indication of what should be
>> done. It is not 'unknown'.
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, and since the recovery procedure is defined and known to the consumer,
>>> it can potentially be automated (atleast for non-firmware cases).
>>>
>>>>> I guess if you all want to stick with vendor-specific then I think that's
>>
>> Well, I would honestly prefer a direct firmware-flash, but if that is not
>> usable by other vendors and there's a push back on that, let's go with
>> the vendor-specific then.
> 
> I think the procedure for firmware-flash is vendor specific, so the wedged event
> alone is not sufficient either way. The consumer will need more guidance from
> vendor documentation.

Procedure of firmware-flash is vendor specific, but the term 
'firmware-flash' is still generic. The patch doesn't mention any vendor 
specific firmware or procedure. The push back was for the number of 
macros that can be added for other operations.


> 
> With vendor-specific method, the driver has the opportunity to cover as many
> cases as it wants without having to create a new method everytime, and face the
> same dilemma of being vendor agnostic.
> 
>>>>> ok with me too, but the docs should at least explain how to figure out
>>>>> from the uevent which vendor you're on with a small example. What I'm
>>>>> worried is that if we have this on multiple drivers userspace will
>>>>> otherwise make a complete mess and might want to run the wrong recovery
>>>>> steps.
>>>
>>> The device id along with driver can be identified from uevent (probably
>>> available inside DEVPATH somewhere) to distinguish the vendor. So the consumer
>>> already knows if the device fits the criteria for recovery.
>>>
>>>>> I think ideally, no matter what, we'd have a concrete driver patch which
>>>>> then also comes with the documentation for what exactly you're supposed to
>>>>> do as something you can script. And not just this stand-alone patch here.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the rest of the series didn't make it to dri-devel, which will answer
>>> most of the above.
>>
>> Riana, could you please try to provide a bit more documentation like Sima
>> asked and re-send the entire series to dri-devel?

Sure will send the entire series to dri-devel. The documentation is 
present in the series.

> 
> With the ideas in this thread also documented so that we don't end up repeating
> the same discussion.
It is mentioned in cover letter but i didn't send it to dri-devel. will 
add more details

Thanks
Riana

> 
> Raag
> 
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>   Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 9 +++++----
>>>>>>>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c      | 2 ++
>>>>>>>>>>   include/drm/drm_device.h       | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>>>>   3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
>>>>>>>>>> index 263e5a97c080..c33070bdb347 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -421,10 +421,10 @@ Recovery
>>>>>>>>>>   Current implementation defines three recovery methods, out of which, drivers
>>>>>>>>>>   can use any one, multiple or none. Method(s) of choice will be sent in the
>>>>>>>>>>   uevent environment as ``WEDGED=<method1>[,..,<methodN>]`` in order of less to
>>>>>>>>>> -more side-effects. If driver is unsure about recovery or method is unknown
>>>>>>>>>> -(like soft/hard system reboot, firmware flashing, physical device replacement
>>>>>>>>>> -or any other procedure which can't be attempted on the fly), ``WEDGED=unknown``
>>>>>>>>>> -will be sent instead.
>>>>>>>>>> +more side-effects. If recovery method is specific to vendor
>>>>>>>>>> +``WEDGED=vendor-specific`` will be sent and userspace should refer to vendor
>>>>>>>>>> +specific documentation for further recovery steps. If driver is unsure about
>>>>>>>>>> +recovery or method is unknown, ``WEDGED=unknown`` will be sent instead
>>>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>>>   Userspace consumers can parse this event and attempt recovery as per the
>>>>>>>>>>   following expectations.
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ following expectations.
>>>>>>>>>>       none            optional telemetry collection
>>>>>>>>>>       rebind          unbind + bind driver
>>>>>>>>>>       bus-reset       unbind + bus reset/re-enumeration + bind
>>>>>>>>>> +    vendor-specific vendor specific recovery method
>>>>>>>>>>       unknown         consumer policy
>>>>>>>>>>       =============== ========================================
>>>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>>>>>>>>>> index cdd591b11488..0ac723a46a91 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -532,6 +532,8 @@ static const char *drm_get_wedge_recovery(unsigned int opt)
>>>>>>>>>>   		return "rebind";
>>>>>>>>>>   	case DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_BUS_RESET:
>>>>>>>>>>   		return "bus-reset";
>>>>>>>>>> +	case DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_VENDOR:
>>>>>>>>>> +		return "vendor-specific";
>>>>>>>>>>   	default:
>>>>>>>>>>   		return NULL;
>>>>>>>>>>   	}
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_device.h b/include/drm/drm_device.h
>>>>>>>>>> index 08b3b2467c4c..08a087f149ff 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/drm/drm_device.h
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_device.h
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -26,10 +26,14 @@ struct pci_controller;
>>>>>>>>>>    * Recovery methods for wedged device in order of less to more side-effects.
>>>>>>>>>>    * To be used with drm_dev_wedged_event() as recovery @method. Callers can
>>>>>>>>>>    * use any one, multiple (or'd) or none depending on their needs.
>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>> + * Refer to "Device Wedging" chapter in Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst for more
>>>>>>>>>> + * details.
>>>>>>>>>>    */
>>>>>>>>>>   #define DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_NONE		BIT(0)	/* optional telemetry collection */
>>>>>>>>>>   #define DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_REBIND	BIT(1)	/* unbind + bind driver */
>>>>>>>>>>   #define DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_BUS_RESET	BIT(2)	/* unbind + reset bus device + bind */
>>>>>>>>>> +#define DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_VENDOR	BIT(3)	/* vendor specific recovery method */
>>>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>>>   /**
>>>>>>>>>>    * struct drm_wedge_task_info - information about the guilty task of a wedge dev
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> 2.47.1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>

More information about the Intel-xe mailing list