On 11/21/2019 02:43, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 01:27:23 +0100, <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
If a FW override is present then a version mis-match is actually
ignored. The warning message was still being printed, though. Which
It wasn't a "warning", just "notice"
could confuse people by implying that the load had failed due to the
mis-match when actually something else had failed.
The mis-match still might be a reason why something else failed.
If there is possible confusing, it's likely due to lack of or incomplete
message from this other failure point. So we should make sure that all
failure points correctly indicate the failure reason to avoid confusing.
Do you recall what this other confusing failure was?
Sorry, bad commit message comment. The point was that you could
successfully load the GuC FW but then something entirely unrelated fails
(with or without appropriate error message). However, the first apparent
failure in dmesg is the GuC version mis-match. Therefore a user (or even
developer) might assume that all subsequent issues are caused by the FW
mismatch causing the GuC to not load at all and hence not investigate
any later messages until this first one is fixed/understood.
So the point is just to avoid people wasting time investigating
something that is not actually an error.
This patch adds an extra message to say that the mis-match is being
ignored if an override is present.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
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 66a30ab7044a..c1ae807b07ae 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c
@@ -361,6 +361,9 @@ int intel_uc_fw_fetch(struct intel_uc_fw *uc_fw,
struct drm_i915_private *i915)
err = -ENOEXEC;
goto fail;
}
+
+ dev_notice(dev, "%s firmware %s: Firmware override so
ignoring version mis-match\n",
+ intel_uc_fw_type_repr(uc_fw->type), uc_fw->path);
If you still want to include clear statement about mis-match being
ignored,
then maybe instead of adding new message it could be combined with old
one:
Or maybe just move the mis-match notice into the 'goto fail' section and
not print anything at all in the case of an override. On the grounds
that if someone is specifying an override then it is almost certainly
because the default version is not what they want. So yes, it obviously
is going to be mis-match.
if (uc_fw->major_ver_found != uc_fw->major_ver_wanted ||
uc_fw->minor_ver_found < uc_fw->minor_ver_wanted) {
- dev_notice(dev, "%s firmware %s: unexpected version:
%u.%u != %u.%u\n",
+ dev_notice(dev, "%s firmware %s: %s: %u.%u != %u.%u\n",
intel_uc_fw_type_repr(uc_fw->type),
uc_fw->path,
+ intel_uc_fw_is_overridden(uc_fw) ?
+ "ignoring unexpected version" : "wrong
version",
uc_fw->major_ver_found,
uc_fw->minor_ver_found,
uc_fw->major_ver_wanted,
uc_fw->minor_ver_wanted);
if (!intel_uc_fw_is_overridden(uc_fw)) {
Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
