<snip>
+
+fail:
+ /*
+ * We've failed to load the firmware :(
+ *
+ * Decide whether to disable GuC submission and fall back to
+ * execlist mode, and whether to hide the error by returning
+ * zero or to return -EIO, which the caller will treat as a
+ * nonfatal error (i.e. it doesn't prevent driver load, but
+ * marks the GPU as wedged until reset).
+ */
+ if (i915.enable_guc_loading > 1 || i915.enable_guc_submission > 1)
+ ret = -EIO;
+ else
+ ret = 0;
+
+ if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+ i915.enable_guc_submission = 0;
+ DRM_INFO("GuC submission without firmware not supported\n");
+ DRM_NOTE("Falling back from GuC submission to execlist mode\n");
If i915.enable_guc_submission > 1 we will mark the GPU as wedged so it might
be worth retaining an error level message here in that scenario.
If we are wedging the GPU you do not really care about the fallback, so
theres no real use in having that promoted + those are the original
levels that were already here.
Anyway, it seems like the `enable_guc_* > 1` are likely to be gone. I've
discussed that on IRC yesterday and no one seems to really remember why
we've got it in the first place.
Anusha posted similar concern here with her HuC series as well.
Just to clarify (because as you said the case will probably go away),
what I meant was an extra log for the > 1 case like we had in the
original code, i.e:
DRM_ERROR("GuC init failed: %d\n", ret);
as otherwise we would have declared the GPU wedged without printing any
error-level message to explain why.
Daniele
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
