On 13/03/2017 13:48, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 01:39:45PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 13/03/2017 13:15, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
Currently fw->path values can represent one of three possible states:
1) NULL - device without the uC
2) '\0' - device with the uC but have no firmware
3) else - device with the uC and we have firmware
Second case is used only to WARN at a later stage.
We can WARN right away and merge cases 1 and 2.
Code can be even further simplified and common (HuC/GuC logic) happening
right before the fetch can be offloaded to the common function.
v2: fewer temporary variables, more straightforward flow (M. Wajdeczko)
v3: DRM_ERROR instead of WARN (M. Wajdeczko)
v4: coding standard (J. Lahtinen)
v5: non-trivial rebase
v6: remove path check, we are checking fetch status (M. Wajdeczko)
Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c | 36 ++++++++++-----------------------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc.c | 21 ++++++-------------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 4 +++-
3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
index 0a29c1b..d731f68 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
@@ -368,13 +368,6 @@ int intel_guc_init_hw(struct intel_guc *guc)
intel_uc_fw_status_repr(guc->fw.fetch_status),
intel_uc_fw_status_repr(guc->fw.load_status));
- if (!fw_path) {
- return -ENXIO;
- } else if (*fw_path == '\0') {
- WARN(1, "No GuC firmware known for this platform!\n");
- return -ENODEV;
- }
-
if (guc->fw.fetch_status != INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_SUCCESS)
return -EIO;
@@ -399,7 +392,6 @@ int intel_guc_init_hw(struct intel_guc *guc)
return 0;
}
-
/**
* intel_guc_init_fw() - select and prepare firmware for loading
* @guc: intel_guc struct
@@ -412,37 +404,31 @@ int intel_guc_init_hw(struct intel_guc *guc)
void intel_guc_init_fw(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc);
- const char *fw_path;
+
+ guc->fw.path = NULL;
+ guc->fw.fetch_status = INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_NONE;
+ guc->fw.load_status = INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_NONE;
+ guc->fw.fw = INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_GUC;
If not too hard on the series and all, maybe bikeshed this field to "type".
Makes sense. Can we do that as a separate patch afterwards?
Fine by me.
More importantly, this field wasn't getting set before? I don't see that it
got moved in this diff.
Huh. Quick grep on drm-tip revealed that this was not set, only checked
against. Guess it worked due to pure luck.
:) Okay. This one will be re-spun then?
if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv)) {
- fw_path = I915_SKL_GUC_UCODE;
+ guc->fw.path = I915_SKL_GUC_UCODE;
guc->fw.major_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MAJOR;
guc->fw.minor_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MINOR;
} else if (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv)) {
- fw_path = I915_BXT_GUC_UCODE;
+ guc->fw.path = I915_BXT_GUC_UCODE;
guc->fw.major_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MAJOR;
guc->fw.minor_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MINOR;
} else if (IS_KABYLAKE(dev_priv)) {
- fw_path = I915_KBL_GUC_UCODE;
+ guc->fw.path = I915_KBL_GUC_UCODE;
guc->fw.major_ver_wanted = KBL_FW_MAJOR;
guc->fw.minor_ver_wanted = KBL_FW_MINOR;
} else {
- fw_path = ""; /* unknown device */
+ DRM_ERROR("No GuC firmware known for platform with GuC!\n");
Quick glance over the series suggests intel_guc_init_fw is called
unconditionally from i915_load_modeset_init meaning this error gets logged
on all non-GuC platforms? I must be missing something..
intel_uc_init_fw which call that, returns early if !enable_guc_loading.
in intel_uc_snitize_options():
if (!HAS_GUC) enable_guc_loading = 0
The flow is further improved by next patch.
Ah, I was foiled by diff output. It is difficult to follow this series
if one is not 100% invested into it. Looks good to me then.
Assuming the mysterious fw type (fw.fw) assignment is resolved outside
this patch:
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
