On 09/29/2017 12:10 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:36:56 +0200, Srivatsa, Anusha
<anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Sundaresan, Sujaritha
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 11:38 AM
To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Sundaresan, Sujaritha <sujaritha.sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx>;
Wajdeczko, Michal
<Michal.Wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>; Srivatsa, Anusha
<anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>;
Mateo Lozano, Oscar <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx>; Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele
<daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] drm/i915/guc : Removing enable_guc_loading
module
We currently have two module parameters that control GuC:
"enable_guc_loading" and "enable_guc_submission".
Whenever we need i915.enable_guc_submission=1, we also need
enable_guc_loading=1.
We also need enable_guc_loading=1 when we want to verify the HuC,
which is
every time we have a HuC (but all platforms with HuC have a GuC and
viceversa).
v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha)
v3: Unify seq_puts messages, correcting inconsistencies (Michal)
v4: Rebased
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx>
---
snip
Will do.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 6d7d871..bd583f7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -3138,11 +3138,14 @@ static inline unsigned int
i915_sg_segment_size(void)
* command submission once loaded. But these are logically independent
* properties, so we have separate macros to test them.
*/
-#define HAS_GUC(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->info.has_guc)
#define HAS_GUC_CT(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->info.has_guc_ct)
-#define HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv) (HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
-#define HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev_priv) (HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
-#define HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv) (HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
+#define HAS_GUC(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->info.has_guc)
+#define HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->guc.fw.path !=
NULL)
+#define HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->huc.fw.path !=
NULL)
+
+#define NEEDS_GUC_LOADING(dev_priv) \
+ (HAS_GUC(dev_priv) && \
+ (i915.enable_guc_submission || HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv)))
What if there is GuC and we don't want to use it? The above
NEEDS_GUC_LOADING is still going to load it because it is available.
So maybe there should only be:
#define NEEDS_GUC_LOADING(dev_priv) \
(i915.enable_guc_submission || HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
That is, load guc since guc submission is enabled or we need guc to
authenticate HuC.
Note that we used HAS_GUC as prerequisite that is then followed by
logical
operator AND what guarantees us that we will try to load Guc only if its
available. In your modified macro we will try to load Guc just due to
user
provided enable_guc_submission modparam which may not match hw caps.
On other hand we can try to rely on earlier modparam sanitization but
I would
rather not trust that too much and keep our macro fully independent.
Michal
Yes, this is a good point.
Thanks for the review.
Regards,
Sujaritha
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
