Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/huc: Fix error reported by I915_PARAM_HUC_STATUS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:26:58 +0100, Ye, Tony <tony.ye@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 1/23/2020 7:38 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 16:02:17 +0100, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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;
 Yes, we discussed this here [1] together with [2] but we didn't
conclude our discussion due to different opinions on how represent
some states, in particular "manually disabled" state.
 In this patch I just wanted to restore old notation.
 But we can start new discussion, here is summary:
 ------------------+----------+----------+----------
  HuC state        | today*   | option A | option B
------------------+----------+----------+----------
no HuC hardware   | -ENODEV  | -ENODEV  | -ENODEV
GuC fw disabled   |   0      |     0    | -EOPNOTSUPP
HuC fw disabled   |   0      |     0    | -EOPNOTSUPP
HuC fw missing    |   0      | -ENOPKG  | -ENOEXEC
HuC fw error      |   0      | -ENOEXEC | -ENOEXEC
HuC fw fail       |   0      | -EACCES  |    0

What is the difference of HuC fw error and HuC fw fail here?

see corresponding internal fw status codes:

	INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_ERROR, /* invalid format or version */
	INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_FAIL, /* failed to xfer or init/auth the fw */


Regards,
Tony

HuC authenticated |   1      |     1    |    1
------------------+----------+----------+----------
 Note that all above should be compatible with media driver,
which explicitly looks for no error and value 1
 Michal
 [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/306419/?series=61001&rev=1
[2] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/60800/#rev1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux