On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 19:53 +0530, Animesh Manna wrote: > > On 4/16/2015 4:55 PM, Imre Deak wrote: > > 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. > > Agree, if we want to support only latest firmware for a particular > platform we do not need symlink but during discussion found that if > user want to rollback the newest firmware for same API version which > can be achievable by using symlink and introducing api-version and > minor-version. Anyways I am ok with both the approaches. The only reason I can see for rolling back would be a regression. Fixing that would need to go through the usual bug reporting flow and eventual firmware and driver update. A symlink could anyway be created - as a kind of hack - to force loading a different firmware version, but making this the regular way would only allow for confusion about which firmware version is actually loaded. --Imre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
