-----Original Message-----
From: Briano, Ivan <ivan.bri...@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 4:22 PM
To: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cav...@intel.com>
Cc: intel...@lists.freedesktop.org; Gupta, saurabhg <saurabhg.gu...@intel.com>;
Zuo, Alex <alex....@intel.com>; joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com; Brost, Matthew
<matthew.br...@intel.com>; Zhang, Jianxun <jianxun.zh...@intel.com>; Lin,
Shuicheng <shuicheng....@intel.com>; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org;
Wajdeczko, Michal <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>; Mrozek, Michal
<michal.mro...@intel.com>; Jadav, Raag <raag.ja...@intel.com>; Harrison, John C
<john.c.harri...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 3/5] drm/xe/uapi: Define drm_xe_vm_get_property
>
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jonathan Cavitt wrote:
> > +/** struct xe_vm_fault - Describes faults for
> > %DRM_XE_VM_GET_PROPERTY_FAULTS */
> > +struct xe_vm_fault {
> > + /** @address: Address of the fault */
> > + __u64 address;
> > + /** @address_precision: Precision of faulted address */
> > + __u32 address_precision;
> > + /** @access_type: Type of address access that resulted in fault */
> > + __u8 access_type;
> > + /** @fault_type: Type of fault reported */
> > + __u8 fault_type;
> > + /** @fault_level: fault level of the fault */
> > + __u8 fault_level;
> > + /** @pad: MBZ */
> > + __u8 pad;
> > + /** @reserved: MBZ */
> > + __u64 reserved[4];
> > +};
>
> Are the possible values here documented somewhere or should be just
> follow bspec for them?
I think bspec is currently being used for access_type, fault_type, and
fault_level.
However, I can add the possible values to the kernel docs if you feel that is
pertinent.
The address and address precision don't necessarily follow any currently
documented bspec specifications, but they should be self-explanatory enough
that it's not needed.
-Jonathan Cavitt
>
