On 30/11/2016 23:31, Anusha Srivatsa wrote:
This patch adds the HuC Loading for the BXT by using
the updated file construction.
Version 1.7 of the HuC firmware.
v2: rebased.
v3: rebased on top of drm-tip
Cc: Jeff Mcgee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c
index 663fcc4..6357c19 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c
@@ -40,6 +40,10 @@
* Note that HuC firmware loading must be done before GuC loading.
*/
+#define BXT_FW_MAJOR 01
+#define BXT_FW_MINOR 07
+#define BXT_BLD_NUM 1398
+
#define SKL_FW_MAJOR 01
#define SKL_FW_MINOR 07
#define SKL_BLD_NUM 1398
@@ -52,6 +56,9 @@
SKL_FW_MINOR, SKL_BLD_NUM)
MODULE_FIRMWARE(I915_SKL_HUC_UCODE);
+#define I915_BXT_HUC_UCODE HUC_FW_PATH(bxt, BXT_FW_MAJOR, \
+ BXT_FW_MINOR, BXT_BLD_NUM)
+MODULE_FIRMWARE(I915_BXT_HUC_UCODE);
/**
* huc_ucode_xfer() - DMA's the firmware
* @dev_priv: the drm device
@@ -159,6 +166,10 @@ void intel_huc_init(struct drm_device *dev)
fw_path = I915_SKL_HUC_UCODE;
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 = BXT_FW_MAJOR;
+ huc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MINOR;
}
huc_fw->uc_fw_path = fw_path;
Build number in the file name still worries me. Last time I've asked
about it the thread kind of died off so I will re-state it.
My concern is that if we will be getting firmware releases with the same
major-minor but different build numbers, then embedding the build number
into the driver prevents loading of a newer firmware unless the kernel
is also updated.
I am not sure if that is what we want. Perhaps it is not expected at all
that will happen in production so it is not a concern?
Or if it could happen, perhaps we should either push back on the scheme
- drop the build number and bump the minor in all cases, or
alternatively for our purposes drop the build number from the driver and
have a symlinked scheme on disk?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
