On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 06:12:20PM GMT, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 11:45:17PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
On 11.06.2024 22:32, John Harrison wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 07:30, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>> There are many GuC ABI definitions named in the same way by the i915
>> and Xe drivers, preventing proper generation of the documentation.
>>
>> Promote GuC ABI definitions to shared location that can be used by
>> both drivers and can be included in documentation.
> I still very strongly feel that this is the wrong place for such
> documentation. We do not document any of the hardware registers in the
> driver, nor the MI_ instructions, etc. Why is this any different? The
> GuC ABI is not under the control of the Linux kernel driver, either i915
> or Xe. It is effectively a hardware interface no different to any other
> hardware interface. It is already fully documented by the owners of that
> interface. Rather than just copying random chunks of that documentation
> into the kernel driver, we should just be publishing the official
> document itself. Same as we do for the rest of the hardware.
so go publish this official document
in the meantime IMO it is useful to show, with really little effort, on
what grounds the communication between i915/Xe and GuC works, so
everyone, not just selected engineers, can understand and review our
implementation and check its correctness
furthermore, if you don't like any hw documentation then we should
revisit what is already in gpu/i915 section and also reconsider all our
efforts to document all non-static driver functions, as those functions
are still internal to the driver, not to be used outside
I second that. This is useful documentation internal to our driver.
Specially with a fw which has an ABI that demands version compatibility
with the driver like this.
I too think it's very much appreciated to document the interface we
are using between kernel and firmware.
Lucas De Marchi
