On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 13:09 Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher at amd.com> wrote: > > > *From:* amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] *On Behalf > Of *Christian König > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:37 PM > *To:* Alexandre Demers; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx > *Subject:* Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu > > > > - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for > the amdgpu driver? > > Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing the one > used with radeon. > > Actually, we should probably stick the same one as radeon for now until we > can verify the new firmware in general. Easier to start with a known > working case. > OK. Then, is it expected to have a validation failure with the current firmware? Is the header compatible with how the validation is done under VCE2 and others or should I keep how it was done under radeon? > > > BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue there as > well? > > VCE works on CIK. We ported VCE and UVD to CIK as part of the initial > amdgpu bring up. > I've been using VCE2 port as my template for VCE1. My initial intention was to work on UVD, but I ended up plugging in VCE in the first place. UVD is on my todo list right next, I was expecting to working on it after fixing the VCE part. > > Alex > > > > - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE > disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing > to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has > been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point. > > UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When the > blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into problems > with power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power level). > > OK, but right now it is disabled, so the situation wouldn't be worst isn't it? > - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could > help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need > to be done? > > Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new firmware that > is most likely a futile effort. > I'll send a patch then, and we'll navigate from there. This will allow me to work on UVD in parallel. Alexandre Demers > > Regards, > Christian. > > Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers: > > Hi, > > > > I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last few > weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to see how > it goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware validation (size > doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm > testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti). > > > > Three questions then: > > - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for > the amdgpu driver? > > - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE > disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing > to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has > been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point. > > - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could > help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need > to be done? > > > > Thank you! > > Alexandre Demers > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > amd-gfx mailing list > > amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/attachments/20170614/f2ea9bc9/attachment.html>
