Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2018-11-17 00:42:34)
> Like it was done in commit 9e180d9991dc ("drm/i915: Downgrade unknown
> firmware warnings") for huc and guc: downgrade CSR firmware warnings. If
> we have released no firmware yet for a platform, stop scaring the
> consumer and merely note its expected absence.
>
> By simply removing the warning and early return we hit the condition
> with the appropriate message.
>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
> index b4476d891fa3..a516697bf57d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
> @@ -496,9 +496,6 @@ void intel_csr_ucode_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> csr->fw_path = BXT_CSR_PATH;
> csr->required_version = BXT_CSR_VERSION_REQUIRED;
> csr->max_fw_size = BXT_CSR_MAX_FW_SIZE;
> - } else {
> - MISSING_CASE(INTEL_REVID(dev_priv));
Wider question would be if MISSING_CASE should be CI only. It's meant to
be a warning for us to fix before alpha_support=0, and so should never
reach users or any production system, so the question is moot.
As we have a warning message then the MISSING_CASE is indeed
superfluous here, and the firmware has a different release schedule to
alpha_support so doesn't merit the tight coupling implied by
MISSING_CASE (imo).
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
