Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2020-01-22 23:52:33)
>
>
> On 1/22/20 11:48 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> > From commit 84b1ca2f0e68 ("drm/i915/uc: prefer intel_gt over i915
> > in GuC/HuC paths") we stopped using HUC_STATUS error -ENODEV only
> > to indicate lack of HuC hardware and we started to use this error
> > also for all other cases when HuC was not in use or supported.
> >
> > Fix that by relying again on HAS_GT_UC macro, since currently
> > used function intel_huc_is_supported() is based on HuC firmware
> > support which could be unsupported also due to force disabled
> > GuC firmware.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tony Ye <tony.ye@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Once upon a time did you (Michal) not argue we should indicate the lack
of firmware in the error code? Something like
if (!HAS_GT_UC(gt->i915))
return -ENODEV;
if (!intel_huc_is_supported(huc))
return -ENOEXEC;
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
