Hi all: We tested GLK DMC 1.04 FW in last week of September 2017, using the latest drm-tip version for that time (4.14.0-rc2) and according to our results we could declare this FW as acceptable and healthy to be used with kernel version 4.14 . However, we cannot guarantee quality and healthy of this FW if it is used in top of current drm-tip kernel (4.17-rc0). Best Regards Luis Botello -----Original Message----- From: Srivatsa, Anusha Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 1:30 PM To: Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>; Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Botello Ortega, Luis <luis.botello.ortega@xxxxxxxxx>; Martinez Monroy, Elio <elio.martinez.monroy@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@xxxxxxxxx>; airlied@xxxxxxxx; Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wajdeczko, Michal <Michal.Wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for Geminilake >-----Original Message----- >From: Vivi, Rodrigo >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:04 AM >To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>; Ian W MORRISON ><ianwmorrison@xxxxxxxxx>; airlied@xxxxxxxx; Greg KH ><gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri- >devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wajdeczko, Michal ><Michal.Wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for >Geminilake > >On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:02:52PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, "Srivatsa, Anusha" <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> >>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM >> >>To: Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@xxxxxxxxx> >> >>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>; Srivatsa, Anusha >> >><anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>; Wajdeczko, Michal >> >><Michal.Wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>; Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; >> >>airlied@xxxxxxxx; joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> >>linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> >>intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE >> >>for Geminilake >> >> >> >>On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> <snip> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> NAK on indiscriminate Cc: stable. There are zero guarantees that >> >>>> older kernels will work with whatever firmware you throw at them. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> I included 'Cc: stable' so the patch would get added to the v4.16 >> >>> and >> >>> v4.15 kernels which I have tested with the patch. I found that >> >>> earlier kernels didn't support the 'linux-firmware' package >> >>> required to get wifi working on Intel's new Gemini Lake NUC. >> >> >> >>You realize that this patch should have nothing to do with wifi? >> >> >> >>Rodrigo, Anusha, if you think Cc: stable is appropriate, please >> >>indicate the specific versions of stable it is appropriate for. >> > >> > Hi Jani, >> > >> > The stable kernel version is 4.12 and beyond. >> > It is appropriate to add the CC: stable in my opinion >> >> Who tested the firmware with v4.12 and later? We only have the CI >> results against *current* drm-tip. We don't even know about v4.16. >> > >I understand your concerns, but the problem was that our old process >was a bit >(lot?) messed and there was the unreliable time until the firmware >really lands on linux-firmware.git. So MODULE_FIRMWARE call was only >added after firmware was really there on firmware repository but it wasn't about the testing. > >In other words, the bump version patch was merged after tested, but >MODULE_FIRMWARE was left behind because firmware blob took a while to >get pulled into linux-firmware.git and we end up forgetting to add it there. > >In my opinion it should be safe to add the MODULE_FIRMWARE there based >on the tests from when the version was bumped. Luis, Elio, can you guys confirm that this firmware is tested and healthy? And also, give a tested-by to this patch please? Thanks, Anusha >> I'm not going to ack and take responsibility for the stable backports >> unless someone actually comes forward with credible Tested-bys. >> >> BR, >> Jani. >> >> >> > >> > Anusha >> >>BR, >> >>Jani. >> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> PS. How is this a "RESEND"? I haven't seen this before. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> It is a 'RESEND' for that very reason. I initially sent the patch >> >>> to the same people as a similar patch >> >>> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10143637/) however after >> >>> realising this omitted required addresses I added them and resent >> >>> the >patch. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> Ian >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center >> >> -- >> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
