On to, 2015-04-16 at 17:29 +0530, Animesh Manna wrote: > + Jesse, Rodrigo > > On 04/16/2015 02:51 PM, Imre Deak wrote: > > On to, 2015-04-16 at 14:22 +0530, Animesh Manna wrote: > >> [...] > >> +#include <linux/firmware.h> > >> +#include "i915_drv.h" > >> +#include "i915_reg.h" > >> + > >> +#define I915_CSR_SKL "i915/skl_dmc_ver1.bin" > > The latest version on the FW download page is skl_dmc_ver4.bin as Damien > > pointed out and skl_dmc_ver1.bin is not available there. So why did you > > choose ver1? If ver4 is not compatible with the current driver code, > > then ver1 must be made available too on the download page, otherwise we > > should use here ver4. > > > > The patch otherwise looks ok to me. > > > > --Imre > > Yes, 01.org will be updated with skl_dmc_ver1.bin. Thinking of future > scaling it is decided that we will follow the naming convention > <platform>_dmc_<api-version>.bin and this will be a symbolic link of > the actual firmware. > > Will be requesting firmware team to release firmware in > <platform>_dmc_<api-version>_<minor-version>.bin Here in > skl_dmc_ver4.bin api version is 1.0 and minor version is 4, so changed > the file name to skl_dmc_ver1.bin. I just repeat here Damien, but I don't think there is a need to complicate things with symlinks. IMO I915_CSR_SKL should point to the exact version of the firmware, not just to a symlink with the API version. The driver will be tested with that particular firmware version and so the driver writers should be in full control of what version will be loaded with a given driver version. --Imre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
