Hi Aravind/Rodrigo
How about using a generic telemetry node for this series from
https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/[email protected]/T/#t
instead of a dedicated node for vram-retired-pages?
Thanks
Riana
On 19-10-2026 17:26, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 03:49:13PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 13:33:53 +0530 Aravind Iddamsetty wrote:
+ -
+ name: retired-resource-attrs
+ attributes:
+ -
+ name: node-id
+ type: u32
+ doc: Node ID targeted by this retired resource operation.
+ -
+ name: vram-page
+ type: nest
+ nested-attributes: vram-page-attrs
why wrap attrs in a nest? Are you planning to add other resource types
(than a page)? It's a common anti-pattern in Netlink to over-wrap stuff.
we should indeed remove the wrap and have only the page info.
+ doc: >-
+ Type-specific payload. The resource type is identified by the
+ node (its node-name); each node reports a single resource type.
+ -
+ name: vram-page-attrs
+ attributes:
+ -
+ name: address
+ type: u64
+ doc: Device address of the retired VRAM page (e.g. DPA).
+ -
+ name: size
+ type: u64
prefer uint
+ doc: Size of the retired VRAM page in bytes.
+ -
+ name: max-pages
+ type: u32
+ doc: >-
+ Maximum VRAM pages that can be retired. Present only in the
+ leading summary entry of the dump (no address/size/status).
+ -
+ name: status
+ type: u32
+ doc: Retirement status of the retired VRAM page.
+ enum: retired-resource-status
+ -
+ name: pad
+ type: pad
And then you won't need pad
I noticed this in the review prompts, but I have some reservations here.
We know for sure our value is always u64 because it is our hw definition.
I don't see a good reason why not use the exact size that matches our hw.
