On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 03:26:18PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> 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?
If we want to fail then we should at least fail nicer and tell the user
they're trying something that's not possible.
>
> Michal
>
> ps. what is your expectation if there is GuC HW but no FW was defined?
I just bury my head in the sand whenever a guc approaches.
>
> > /* A negative value means "use platform default" */
> > if (i915_modparams.enable_guc < 0)
> > i915_modparams.enable_guc = __get_platform_enable_guc(i915);
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
