> >>>>> ------------------+---------- > >>>>> HuC state | option B > >>>>> ------------------+---------- > >>>>> no HuC hardware | -ENODEV > >>>>> GuC fw disabled | -EOPNOTSUPP -> user decision, why error? > >>>>> HuC fw disabled | -EOPNOTSUPP -> user decision, why error? > >>>>> HuC fw missing | -ENOEXEC > >>>>> HuC fw error | -ENOEXEC > >>>>> HuC fw fail | 0 -> unlikely, but still fw/hw error > >>>>> HuC authenticated | 1 > >>>>> ------------------+---------- > >>>>> > >>>>> On other hand, option A treats all error conditions as errors, leaving > >>>>> status codes only for normal operations: disabled(0)/authenticated(1): > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------+---------- > >>>>> HuC state | option A > >>>>> ------------------+---------- > >>>>> no HuC hardware | -ENODEV -> you shouldn't ask > >>>>> GuC fw disabled | 0 -> user decision, not an error > >>>>> HuC fw disabled | 0 -> user decision, not an error > >>>>> HuC fw missing | -ENOPKG -> fw not installed correctly > >>>>> HuC fw error | -ENOEXEC -> bad/wrong fw > >>>>> HuC fw fail | -EACCES -> fw/hw error > >>>>> HuC authenticated | 1 > >>>>> ------------------+---------- Let's go with Option B here. It correctly reports anything as error if it precedes the actual action of authentication and prevents it from happening. So the result one gets is 0/1 is for the authentication status which is the original intent here. Or alternatively an error if the authentication was not attempted. Regards, Joonas _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
