On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:40:05 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble
<sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/29/2017 5:44 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:41:57 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble
<sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/28/2017 1:24 AM, Sujaritha Sundaresan 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).
<SNIP>
+
+ /* Making sure that our auto is well defined */
+ GEM_BUG_ON(auto_enable_guc < 0);
+ GEM_BUG_ON((auto_enable_guc > 0) && !HAS_GUC_FW(dev_priv));
+ GEM_BUG_ON((auto_enable_guc & 2) && !HAS_HUC_FW(dev_priv));
+
+ if (i915_modparams.enable_guc < 0)
+ i915_modparams.enable_guc = auto_enable_guc;
+
+ if (i915_modparams.enable_guc > 0) {
+ if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv) || !HAS_GUC_FW(dev_priv)) {
+ DRM_INFO("Ignoring option enable_guc=%d - %s\n",
+ i915_modparams.enable_guc,
+ !HAS_GUC(dev_priv) ? "no GuC hardware" :
+ "no GuC firmware");
+ i915_modparams.enable_guc = 0;
+ }
}
- /* A negative value means "use platform default" */
- if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading < 0)
- i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading = HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv);
-
- /* Verify firmware version */
- if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading) {
- if (HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
- intel_huc_select_fw(&dev_priv->huc);
-
- if (intel_guc_fw_select(&dev_priv->guc))
- i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading = 0;
+ if (i915_modparams.enable_guc & 2) {
+ if (!HAS_HUC_FW(dev_priv)) {
+ DRM_INFO("Ignoring option enable_guc=%d - %s\n",
+ i915_modparams.enable_guc, "no HuC firmware");
+ i915_modparams.enable_guc = 0;
Clearing only HuC status from enable_guc would be proper I guess.
Sorry I did not see this earlier.
My understanding is that if user had specified non-zero positive value
of
'enable_guc' then it means that he requests *all* GuC options to be
available
(something like our old '2=required' mode). If any of required option
is not
available then we should not try to cherry-pick/drop single option.
I think we wanted to enable HuC for some platforms but not enable GuC
submission. Anusha can you
please confirm if such cherry-picking is needed through module parameter.
Cherry-picking through module parameter is fine.
And at the same time we should treat them as mandatory options.
I was referring to cherry-picking (or more precisely droping) during call
to sanitize_options(). So when user specify guc_enable as 3(submission+huc)
we should not convert it into 2(submission only).
Note that if user don't care about specific option, then user should
use -1(auto)
mode and rely on driver decision what is available and in which
configuration.
And for 'auto' mode we try to make sure to do not select broken
configurations.
In that case we can just have 3 values for enable_guc (if cherry-picking
is not to be done)
-1: auto (whatever is available)
0: all disabled
1: all enabled if available else all disabled
Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
