On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 09:24:47AM -0700, Cavitt, Jonathan wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Briano, Ivan <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 4:22 PM > To: Cavitt, Jonathan <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Gupta, saurabhg > <[email protected]>; Zuo, Alex <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Brost, Matthew <[email protected]>; > Zhang, Jianxun <[email protected]>; Lin, Shuicheng > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Wajdeczko, Michal > <[email protected]>; Mrozek, Michal <[email protected]>; > Jadav, Raag <[email protected]>; Harrison, John C > <[email protected]> > 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. >
It's more of a question of API stability. If the HW changes how it reports this, do we get different values in different platforms, or do we want to fix them here?
