>-----Original Message----- >From: Mcgee, Jeff >Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 11:22 AM >To: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx> >Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/huc: Update the construction of file path for HuC >similar to that of GuC > >On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:24:53PM -0700, Anusha Srivatsa wrote: >> Update the file construction and specifying the required version >> similar to that of GuC.Add an extra field for the build number. >> Adopted the approach used in >> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/104355/ <Tvrtko Ursulin> >> >> Cc: Jeff Mcgee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c | 25 >> +++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c >> index 2f5d9d9..419caae 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c >> @@ -39,11 +39,24 @@ >> * >> * Note that HuC firmware loading must be done before GuC loading. >> */ >> +#define SKL_FW_MAJOR 01 >> +#define SKL_FW_MINOR 07 >> +#define SKL_BLD_NUM 1398 >> >> -#define I915_SKL_HUC_UCODE "i915/skl_huc_ver01_07_1398.bin" >> +#define BXT_FW_MAJOR 01 >> +#define BXT_FW_MINOR 07 >> +#define BXT_BLD_NUM 1398 >> + >> +#define HUC_FW_PATH(platform, major, minor, bld_num) \ >> + "i915/" __stringify(platform) "_huc_ver" __stringify(major) "_" \ >> + __stringify(minor) "_" __stringify(bld_num) ".bin" >> + >> +#define I915_SKL_HUC_UCODE HUC_FW_PATH(skl, SKL_FW_MAJOR, \ >> + SKL_FW_MINOR, SKL_BLD_NUM) >> MODULE_FIRMWARE(I915_SKL_HUC_UCODE); >> >> -#define I915_BXT_HUC_UCODE "i915/bxt_huc_ver01_07_1398.bin" >> +#define I915_BXT_HUC_UCODE HUC_FW_PATH(bxt, BXT_FW_MAJOR, \ >> + BXT_FW_MINOR, BXT_BLD_NUM) >> MODULE_FIRMWARE(I915_BXT_HUC_UCODE); >> >> /** >> @@ -151,12 +164,12 @@ void intel_huc_init(struct drm_device *dev) >> >> if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv)) { >> fw_path = I915_SKL_HUC_UCODE; >> - huc_fw->major_ver_wanted = 1; >> - huc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = 7; >> + huc_fw->major_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MAJOR; >> + huc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MINOR; >> } else if (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv)) { >> fw_path = I915_BXT_HUC_UCODE; >> - huc_fw->major_ver_wanted = 1; >> - huc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = 7; >> + huc_fw->major_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MAJOR; >> + huc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MINOR; >> } >> >> if (fw_path == NULL) >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> > >Looks good but it would be far better to make these changes in the >corresponding patches within the origin HuC patch set, rather than >proposing a follow-up patch to correct issues in that set (which is >not yet merged and can be updated). Agreed. Thankyou for the review. >-Jeff _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
