On Mon, 2019-08-19 at 21:59 -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote: > > On 8/19/2019 9:25 PM, Summers, Stuart wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-08-19 at 18:23 -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote: > > > First uc firmware release for EHL. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio < > > > daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c | 13 +++++++------ > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c > > > index bd22bf11adad..296a82603be0 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c > > > @@ -39,12 +39,13 @@ void intel_uc_fw_change_status(struct > > > intel_uc_fw > > > *uc_fw, > > > * Must be ordered based on platform + revid, from newer to > > > older. > > > */ > > > #define INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, guc_def, huc_def) \ > > > - fw_def(ICELAKE, 0, guc_def(icl, 33, 0, 0), > > > huc_def(icl, 8, 4, 3238)) \ > > > - fw_def(COFFEELAKE, 0, guc_def(kbl, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(kbl, 02, > > > 00, 1810)) \ > > > - fw_def(GEMINILAKE, 0, guc_def(glk, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(glk, 03, > > > 01, 2893)) \ > > > - fw_def(KABYLAKE, 0, guc_def(kbl, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(kbl, 02, > > > 00, 1810)) \ > > > - fw_def(BROXTON, 0, guc_def(bxt, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(bxt, > > > 01, 8, 2893)) \ > > > - fw_def(SKYLAKE, 0, guc_def(skl, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(skl, 01, > > > 07, 1398)) > > > + fw_def(ELKHARTLAKE, 0, guc_def(ehl, 33, 0, 4), > > > huc_def(ehl, 9, 0, 0)) \ > > > > Is there a reason you are bumping straight to 33.0.4 for EHL rather > > than sticking with the existing firmware version? Or worded > > differently, why don't we bump everything to 33.0.4 if we're adding > > EHL > > here to stay in sync between the platforms? > > 33.0.4 is the first release to include an EHL build, so I didn't > have > the choice to stick with 33.0.0 for it, otherwise I would have. As > for > why I didn't update all the other blobs, it was because AFAICS from > the > release notes there are no changes that we need at the moment, > mostly > because the only thing we do with GuC is authenticating HuC and that > flow is pretty static. All the 33.0.* releases are compatible at the > interface level so I opted to avoid pushing several more binaries > just > to keep the numbers the same with no real benefit. > > As a general point, I think we should expect that the patch number > might > vary across platforms as we get platform-specific features/fixes, > but > major and minor, which indicate the interface version, will be in > sync. Ok, makes sense and I agree with your reasoning here. You might want another review from someone with more experience on EHL. Otherwise the changes look good: Reviewed-by: Stuart Summers <stuart.summers@xxxxxxxxx> > > Daniele > > > Thanks, > > Stuart > > > > > + fw_def(ICELAKE, 0, guc_def(icl, 33, 0, 0), > > > huc_def(icl, 8, 4, 3238)) \ > > > + fw_def(COFFEELAKE, 0, guc_def(kbl, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(kbl, 02, > > > 00, 1810)) \ > > > + fw_def(GEMINILAKE, 0, guc_def(glk, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(glk, 03, > > > 01, 2893)) \ > > > + fw_def(KABYLAKE, 0, guc_def(kbl, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(kbl, 02, > > > 00, 1810)) \ > > > + fw_def(BROXTON, 0, guc_def(bxt, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(bxt, > > > 01, 8, 2893)) \ > > > + fw_def(SKYLAKE, 0, guc_def(skl, 33, 0, 0), huc_def(skl, 01, > > > 07, 1398)) > > > > > > #define __MAKE_UC_FW_PATH(prefix_, name_, separator_, major_, > > > minor_, patch_) \ > > > "i915/" \ > >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
