On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:22:01 +0200, Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
One should see this warning message:
DRM_WARN("Incompatible option detected: %s=%d, %s!\n",
"enable_guc", i915_modparams.enable_guc,
!HAS_GUC(i915) ? "no GuC hardware" :
"no GuC firmware");
and after we finally fix -EIO support it will be followed by:
"Failed to initialize GPU, declaring it wedged!\n"
Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
