On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:53:20 +0200, Ville Syrjala
<ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
If there's no guc don't try to initialize it even if the user asked for
it.
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
index 7c95697e1a35..2765808b01e0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
@@ -106,6 +106,11 @@ static void sanitize_options_early(struct
drm_i915_private *i915)
struct intel_uc_fw *guc_fw = &i915->guc.fw;
struct intel_uc_fw *huc_fw = &i915->huc.fw;
+ if (!HAS_GUC(i915)) {
+ i915_modparams.enable_guc = 0;
+ return;
+ }
+
This will silently switch from user requested GuC-submission to
execlist-mode which we wanted to stop.
If user don't know what is available on given platform then auto(-1)
mode should be used instead. If user has decided to explicitly specify
invalid enable_guc !0 mode on non-GuC platform why do we want to ignore
that and continue as nothing happened?
Michal
ps. what is your expectation if there is GuC HW but no FW was defined?
/* A negative value means "use platform default" */
if (i915_modparams.enable_guc < 0)
i915_modparams.enable_guc = __get_platform_enable_guc(i915);
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
