On 2016.12.15 22:36:40 +0000, Srivatsa, Anusha wrote: > Hi All, > > > > I was wondering if we intend to keep -1 and 2 for the enable_guc_submission > parameter. Since now we are gating guc loads if either guc_submission or > enable_huc parameter is set, why have a -1(platform default) and 2(forcefully > load) option? We anyway do not have any special default set per platform. For > now the default is 0 on all platforms. Moving forward if GuC gets more stable > and we want to set a default to a certain platform, we can add -1 then. > > > > Also, why have a 2? We can use enable_guc_submission=1 in order to make sure > the guc is loaded and guc_submission is enabled and set enable_guc_submission=0 > to make sure guc submission is not used. > > > > Any thought on this? > > For gvt, we need to disable guc submission in guest on current hw. I just want to send one using current enable_guc_loading but if changed to guc_submission/enable_huc later, I'll hold till that settle down. To support HuC for guest, we will need to add extra pvinfo, so won't allow guest kernel to load huc firmware but tell guest driver that HuC is ready for use. thanks -- Open Source Technology Center, Intel ltd. $gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4D781827
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
