On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:11:24PM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote: > On 7/1/2025 5:07 PM, Riana Tauro wrote: > > On 6/30/2025 11:03 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 10:29:10AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > > > > On 27.06.25 23:38, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > > > > Or at least print a big warning into the system log? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean a firmware update is usually something which > > > > > > > the system administrator triggers very explicitly > > > > > > > because when it fails for some reason (e.g. > > > > > > > unexpected reset, power outage or whatever) it can > > > > > > > sometimes brick the HW. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's rather brave to do this automatically. > > > > > > > Are you sure we don't talk past each other on the > > > > > > > meaning of the wedge event? > > > > > > > > > > > > The goal is not to do that automatically, but raise the > > > > > > uevent to the admin > > > > > > with enough information that they can decide for the right > > > > > > correctable > > > > > > action. > > > > > > > > > > Christian, Andre, any concerns with this still? > > > > > > > > Well, that sounds not quite the correct use case for wedge events. > > > > > > > > See the wedge event is made for automation. > > > > > > I respectfully disagree with this statement. > > > > > > The wedged state in i915 and xe, then ported to drm, was never just about > > > automation. Of course, the unbind + flr + rebind is one that driver > > > cannot > > > do by itself, hence needs automation. But wedge cases were also very > > > useful > > > in other situations like keeping the device in the failure stage for > > > debuging > > > (without automation) or keeping other critical things up like > > > display with SW > > > rendering (again, nothing about automation). > > > > > > > For example to allow a process supervising containers get the > > > > device working again and re-start the container which used it or > > > > gather crash log etc ..... > > > > > > > > When you want to notify the system administrator which manual > > > > intervention is necessary then I would just write that into the > > > > system log and raise a device event with WEDGED=unknown. > > > > > > > > What we could potentially do is to separate between > > > > WEDGED=unknown and WEDGED=manual, e.g. between driver has no > > > > idea what to do and driver printed useful info into the system > > > > log. > > > > > > Well, you are right here. Even our official documentation in drm-uapi.rst > > > already tells that firmware flashing should be a case for 'unknown'. > > > > I had added specific method since we know firmware flash will recover > > the error. Sure will change it. > > > > In the current code, there is no recovery method named "unknown" even > > though the document mentions it > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16-rc4/source/drivers/gpu/drm/ > > drm_drv.c#L534 > > > > Since we are adding something new, can it be "manual" instead of unknown? > > Okay missed it. It's in the drm_dev_wedged_event function. Will use unknown > > > > > Let's go with that then. And use other hints like logs and sysfs so, > > > Admin > > > has a better information of what to do. > > > > > > > But creating an event with WEDGED=firmware-flash just sounds to > > > > specific, when we go down that route we might soon have > > > > WEDGE=change- bios-setting, WEDGE=.... > > > > > > Well, I agree that we shouldn't explode the options exponentially here. > > > > > > Although I believe that firmware flashing should be a common case in many > > > case and could be a candidate for another indication. > > > > > > But let's move on with WEDGE='unknown' for this case.
I understand that WEDGED=firmware-flash can't be handled in a generic way for all drivers but it is simply not as same as WEDGED=unknown since the driver knows something specific needs to be done here. I'm wondering if we could add a WEDGED=vendor-specific method for such cases? Chris? André? Raag
