On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 06:11:12PM +0000, Srivatsa, Anusha wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > >Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 12:41 AM > >To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>; intel- > >gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mcgee, Jeff <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx> > >Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Always load guc by default. > > > >On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:31:22AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >> On 24/11/2016 08:21, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> >On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:15:31AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> >> > >> >>On 24/11/2016 07:13, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> >>>On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:52:38PM -0800, Anusha Srivatsa wrote: > >> >>>>Remove the enable_guc_loading parameter. Load the GuC on plaforms > >> >>>>that have GuC. All issues we found so far are related to GuC > >> >>>>features like the command submission, but no bug is related to the > >> >>>>guc loading itself. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>This addresses the case when we need GuC loaded even with no GuC > >> >>>>feature in use, like - GuC authenticating HuC loading. > >> >>> > >> >>>Why not just load the firmware if it may be used? > >> >> > >> >>It was discussed briefly in the other thread, but I suppose as soon > >> >>as the HuC patches go in that would be always so it may not be that > >> >>useful. > >> >> > >> >>Unless there is a reason to add a HuC enable/disable parameter in > >> >>general. I have no idea on that one. > >> > > >> >In hindsight, we should have had i915.enable_dmc to easily protect > >> >users against failures. History says we will regret enabling a new > >> >piece of hw/fw without a feature option. > >> > >> So.. > >> > >> 1. Add i915.enable_huc, default to enabled 2. Unexport > >> i915.enable_guc_loading 3. Gate enable_guc_loading by i915.enable_huc > >> and i915.enable_guc_submission > > > >Aye, that would be my preference. > >-Chris > > So, basically control the guc loads depending on huc_enable or guc_submission parameter. If either or both are enabled then load guc. > No need to load guc if a platform has one? > Any thought on having 0,-1,1 and 2 values for submission? 1 is load if guc is available (but do not error out if not present) and 2 is load and fail if not present. I am thinking what if we need that differentiation..... I have no idea what value 2 has for anybody. Userspace can check whether or not guc submission is enabled and fail validation without resorting to the kernel wedging the machine. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
