[PATCH v3 2/4] drm/xe/guc: Add missing H2G error code definitions
John Harrison
john.c.harrison at intel.com
Mon May 12 19:30:11 UTC 2025
On 5/8/2025 12:50 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> On 08.05.2025 03:34, John.C.Harrison at Intel.com wrote:
>> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
>>
>> These error codes are not actually used in the driver but it is
>> extremely useful to have them available to understand error messages.
>>
>> v2: Add a bunch more error codes and drop 'status' from names (review
>> feedback by Michal W).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
>
> with one nit below
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/abi/guc_errors_abi.h | 15 ++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/abi/guc_errors_abi.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/abi/guc_errors_abi.h
>> index 2c627a21648f..cf00300add37 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/abi/guc_errors_abi.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/abi/guc_errors_abi.h
>> @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@
>> #ifndef _ABI_GUC_ERRORS_ABI_H
>> #define _ABI_GUC_ERRORS_ABI_H
>>
>> -enum xe_guc_response_status {
>> - XE_GUC_RESPONSE_STATUS_SUCCESS = 0x0,
>> +enum xe_guc_response {
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_SUCCESS = 0x0,
> this value seems to be some leftover from an earlier GuC ABI where there
> was single H2G RESPONSE message, but today, as we have separate HXG
> RESPONSE SUCCESS and FAILURE message types, there is no place for the
> success code in SUCCESS message and in the FAILURE message we expect
> only error responses, and 0 there can't be treated as success any more
Good point!
> maybe we can put some note here until official spec is fixed?
I'll just drop it. The file does not need to be an exact copy of the
spec, it is just a reference aid for debugging. So no point having
meaningless entries.
John.
>
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_ERROR_PROTOCOL = 0x04,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_STATE = 0x0A,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_UNSUPPORTED_VERSION = 0x0B,
>> @@ -21,12 +21,20 @@ enum xe_guc_response_status {
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_CANNOT_COMPLETE_ACTION = 0x41,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_KLV_DATA = 0x50,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_PARAMS = 0x60,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_CONTEXT_INDEX = 0x61,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_CONTEXT_REGISTRATION = 0x62,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_DOORBELL_ID = 0x63,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_ENGINE_ID = 0x64,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_BUFFER_RANGE = 0x70,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_BUFFER = 0x71,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_BUFFER_ALREADY_REGISTERED = 0x72,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_GGTT_ADDRESS = 0x80,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_PENDING_ACTION = 0x90,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_CONTEXT_NOT_REGISTERED = 0x100,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_CONTEXT_ALREADY_REGISTERED = 0X101,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_SIZE = 0x102,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_MALFORMED_KLV = 0x103,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_CONTEXT = 0x104,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_KLV_KEY = 0x105,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_DATA_TOO_LARGE = 0x106,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_VF_MIGRATED = 0x107,
>> @@ -40,10 +48,11 @@ enum xe_guc_response_status {
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_CTB_NOT_REGISTERED = 0x304,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_CTB_IN_USE = 0x305,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_CTB_INVALID_DESC = 0x306,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_HW_TIMEOUT = 0x30C,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_CTB_SOURCE_INVALID_DESCRIPTOR = 0x30D,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_CTB_DESTINATION_INVALID_DESCRIPTOR = 0x30E,
>> XE_GUC_RESPONSE_INVALID_CONFIG_STATE = 0x30F,
>> - XE_GUC_RESPONSE_STATUS_GENERIC_FAIL = 0xF000,
>> + XE_GUC_RESPONSE_GENERIC_FAIL = 0xF000,
>> };
>>
>> enum xe_guc_load_status {
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list