On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:10:03AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:56:10AM +0100, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:02:14PM -0800, anushasr wrote:
> > > -static u32 guc_wopcm_size(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > +u32 guc_wopcm_size(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > {
> > > u32 wopcm_size = GUC_WOPCM_TOP;
> > >
> > > @@ -511,6 +511,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > if (err)
> > > goto fail;
> > >
> > > + intel_huc_load(dev_priv);
>
> We don't need error handling? That would simplify a lot of our code!
> -Chris
With this patch series on this specific piece of code - not really.
HuC support it intorduce is _best-eforrty_.
If the function would report error we would not act on it in anyway
other than logging the fail (which the function already does for us).
As Anusha discussed here, there will be some code reorganization due to
introduction of i915.enable_huc and deprecation of enable_guc_loading.
Once we want to have enable_huc=2, there is a reason to change the
signature and report errors.
--
Cheers,
Arek
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
