On ma, 2016-07-11 at 14:50 +0100, chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 04:24:50PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > On ma, 2016-07-11 at 13:55 +0100, chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > And then you get random changes in the firmare whilst bisecting > > > the > > > kernel. > > > > What do you mean random? During bisecting we want to load the > > firmware > > version that was used with a particular commit. With a symlink > > pointing > > to the wrong firmware file for a given commit, we'd fail loading > > the > > firmware due to the version check and hide/introduce bugs for that > > commit. > > No. You want to be changing exactly one variable, which means leaving > the firmware constant. Hm, not sure. When looking for a working snapshot you also want to consider bugs introduced by the firmware itself. This is in a way the exact reason why we want stricter control on the firmware version and introduced a white list. This also means that loading a firmware version other than what the driver allows (at a given commit) won't work anyway. > The firmware should be side-ways compatible for > everything with the same minor version (thus resolvable from the same > symlink), right? >From the same major version I guess it should, but the reason things don't work that way is why we introduced version white listing. --Imre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
