On Fri, 03 Nov 2017, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 09:34 -0700, Sujaritha wrote: >> >> On 10/25/2017 08:26 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: >> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:21:21 +0200, Sujaritha Sundaresan >> > <sujaritha.sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > > We currently have two module parameters that control GuC: >> > > "enable_guc_loading" and "enable_guc_submission". Whenever >> > > we need submission=1, we also need loading=1.We also need >> > > loading=1 when we want to want to verify the HuC, which >> > > is every time we have a HuC (but all platforms with HuC >> > > have a GuC and viceversa). >> > > >> > > Also if we have HuC have firmware to be loaded, we need to >> > > have GuC to actually load it. So if the user wants to avoid >> > > the GuC from getting loaded, they must not have a HuC >> > > firmware to be loaded, in addition to not using submission. >> > >> > Hmm, I'm not sure that removal of HuC firmware file is the best >> > way for the user to stop undesired GuC loading. >> > >> > I know that we want to minimize number of modparams, but maybe >> > new i915.enable_huc=auto(-1)|never(0)|if available(1)|required(2) >> > will solve here ... >> > >> > Alternatively we can replace both existing modparams with single: >> > >> > i915.enable_guc = off(0) | auto(1) | submission(2) | huc(4) >> > >> > then we could cover almost all cases: >> > >> > 0 = GuC loading disabled (no GuC submission, no HuC) >> > 1 = GuC loading auto >> > 2 = GuC loading enabled, GuC submission required, HuC disabled >> > 3 = GuC loading enabled, GuC submission enabled, HuC disabled >> > 4 = GuC loading enabled, GuC submission disabled, HuC required >> > 5 = GuC loading enabled, GuC submission disabled, HuC enabled >> > 6 = GuC loading enabled, GuC submission required, HuC required >> > 7 = GuC loading enabled, GuC submission enabled, HuC enabled > > Do we really need all these combinations. Ugh, I hope not. Pick the combinations you're committed to testing. If it's not tested, it doesn't exist. Side note, you also have guc_firmware_path and huc_firmware_path options. BR, Jani. > My understanding is that we got three cases: > > 1. Load and use GuC, HuC goes on the side > 2. Load GuC, just to get HuC > 3. Don't load GuC at all > > Which could be mapped to .enable_guc: > > -1 = default (driver does as sees fit) > 0 = no GuC, no nothing > 1 = load and use GuC, HuC comes on the side > 2 = Load GuC only, for HuC > > Or if you want just the GuC without HuC at times, then > > 0x1 = Use GuC > 0x2 = Use Huc > > Loading is then implied. Somebody could remind me why we should > consider required, disabled vs. enabled options? > > Regards, Joonas -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
