>-----Original Message----- >From: Mcgee, Jeff >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:46 PM >To: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx> >Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ursulin, Tvrtko ><tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Vivi, Rodrigo ><rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/GuC: Combine the two kernel >parameter into one > >On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:06:47AM -0800, Srivatsa, Anusha wrote: >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Tvrtko Ursulin [mailto:tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:31 AM >> >To: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>; Mcgee, Jeff >> ><jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx> >> >Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>; >> >intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Vivi, Rodrigo >> ><rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> >> >Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/GuC: Combine the two kernel >> >parameter into one >> > >> > >> >On 14/11/2016 17:34, Srivatsa, Anusha wrote: >> > >> >[snip] >> > >> >>> One idea could be to hide the guc loading form the user altogether >> >>> and hence improve usability (decrease exposed complexity) by >> >>> having only two parameters; i915.enable_guc_scheduling and >i915.enable_huc. >> >> That's a good point. But with this we will have two parameters >> >> (which kills the >> >point of why the patch was written in the first place), then we can >> >rather leave it the way it is. Right? >> > >> >For some reason I thought the HuC patch series add a another module >> >parameter. >> > >> >What is the failure mode for HuC is GuC firmware loading is disabled btw? >> >> >> Hi Tvrtko, in the function intel_guc_auth_huc() there is a check to see if GuC is >loaded or not. If GuC loading has failed or loading is disabled, then HuC >authentication does not happen. >> >Yes, GuC must authenticate HuC firmware. > >I am in favor of Tvrtko's suggestion for dropping i915.enable_guc_loading, >keeping i915.enable_guc_submission, and adding i915.enable_huc. If either of >the last two are enabled, GuC loading is implied. So kernel parameters are tied to >enabling specific functionality. I think the specific parameter for loading is legacy >from the first hurdle for GuC long ago. I assume we are not bound by ABI to keep >that around if it is no longer needed, yes? > >The other thing I would want to reconsider is the "casual" enable vs. "force" >enable options. Does anyone remember why these 2 levels of enable have been >used. Maybe this is also a legacy. Can we just do a auto (-1), disable (0), and >enable (1)? Well , -1 was for platform default, 1: if guc is available use it, 0 do not use it and 2 "force" use the guC. I agree with the above suggestion. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
