On 25/02/2022 16:46, John Harrison wrote:
driver we don't care that much that we failed to load HWconfig and
'notice' is enough.
but I'm fine with all messages being drm_err (as we will not have to
change that once again after HWconfig will be mandatory for the driver
as well)
I would be against drm_err.
#define KERN_EMERG KERN_SOH "0" /* system is unusable */
#define KERN_ALERT KERN_SOH "1" /* action must be taken
immediately */
#define KERN_CRIT KERN_SOH "2" /* critical conditions */
#define KERN_ERR KERN_SOH "3" /* error conditions */
#define KERN_WARNING KERN_SOH "4" /* warning conditions */
#define KERN_NOTICE KERN_SOH "5" /* normal but significant
condition */
#define KERN_INFO KERN_SOH "6" /* informational */
#define KERN_DEBUG KERN_SOH "7" /* debug-level messages */
From the point of view of the kernel driver, this is not an error to
its operation. It can at most be a warning, but notice is also fine by
me. One could argue when reading "normal but significant condition"
that it is not normal, when it is in fact unexpected, so if people
prefer warning that is also okay by me. I still lean towards notice
becuase of the hands-off nature i915 has with the pass-through of this
blob.
From the point of view of the KMD, i915 will load and be 'functional'
if it can't talk to the hardware at all. The UMDs won't work at all but
Well this reductio ad absurdum fails I think... :)
the driver load will be 'fine'. That's a requirement to be able to get
the user to a software fallback desktop in order to work out why the
hardware isn't working (e.g. no GuC firmware file). I would view this as
similar. The KMD might have loaded but the UMDs are not functional. That
is definitely an error condition to me.
... If GuC fails to load there is no command submission and driver will
obviously log that with drm_err.
If blob fails to verify it depends on the userspace stack what will
happen. As stated before on some platforms, and/or after a certain time,
Mesa will not look at the blob at all. So i915 is fine (it is after all
just a conduit for opaque data!), system overall is fine, so it
definitely isn't a KERN_ERR level event.
+ ERR_PTR(ret));
+
ret = guc_enable_communication(guc);
if (ret)
goto err_log_capture;
@@ -562,6 +567,8 @@ static void __uc_fini_hw(struct intel_uc *uc)
if (intel_uc_uses_guc_submission(uc))
intel_guc_submission_disable(guc);
+ intel_guc_hwconfig_fini(&guc->hwconfig);
+
__uc_sanitize(uc);
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
index 76e590fcb903..1d31e35a5154 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
@@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static const struct intel_device_info
adl_p_info = {
BIT(RCS0) | BIT(BCS0) | BIT(VECS0) | BIT(VCS0) |
BIT(VCS2),
.ppgtt_size = 48,
.dma_mask_size = 39,
+ .has_guc_hwconfig = 1,
Who requested this change? It was previously done this way but the
instruction was that i915_pci.c is for hardware features only but that
this, as you seem extremely keen about pointing out at every
opportunity, is a software feature.
This was requested by Michal as well. I definitely agree it is a
software feature, but I was not aware that "i915_pci.c is for hardware
features only".
Michal, do you agree with this and returning to the previous method for
enabling the feature?
now I'm little confused as some arch direction was to treat FW as
extension of the HW so for me it was natural to have 'has_guc_hwconfig'
flag in device_info
if still for some reason it is undesired to mix HW and FW/SW flags
inside single group of flags then maybe we should just add separate
group of immutable flags where has_guc_hwconfig could be defined.
let our maintainers decide
Bah.. :)
And what was the previous method?
[comes back later]
Okay it was:
+static bool has_table(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
+{
+ if (IS_ALDERLAKE_P(i915))
+ return true;
Which sucks a bit if we want to argue it does not belong in device info.
Why can't we ask the GuC if the blob exists? In fact what would happen
if one would call __guc_action_get_hwconfig on any GuC platform?
That was how I originally wrote the code. However, other parties refuse
to allow a H2G call to fail. The underlying CTB layers complain loudly
on any CTB error. And the GuC architects insist that a call to query the
table on an unsupported platform is an error and should return an
'unsupported' error code.
Oh well, shrug, sounds silly but I will not pretend I am familiar with H2G
In this case has_table does sound better since it indeed isn't a
hardware feature. It is a GuC fw thing and if we don't have a way to
probe things there at runtime, then at least limit the knowledge to GuC
files.
Regards,
Tvrtko
