On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 12:33 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > 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. Yep, I think I suggested them originally. Then you only would have .enable_guc boolean for whether you want to use GuC submission. So I'm kinda looking forward to seeing a definitive list of what we actually require by use-case and what we're committed to testing. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
