On ma, 2016-03-07 at 13:39 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 03:12:40PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > On ma, 2016-03-07 at 12:05 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > If the firmware is generic and has a run-anywhere mode, enable it > > > rather > > > than completely failing on unknown HW revisions. > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Sunil Kamath <sunil.kamath@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Looks ok: > > Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > This is probably stable@ material since it could allow future hw > > > to > > > just work. > > > > Existing platforms will select the generic firmware version already if > > one is provided in the image, this change will just allow us not to > > provide a stepping info table for new platforms. So not sure why it's > > @stable material. > > Because we are already hitting the scenario where there are new > platforms that do not match the hardcoded set of steppings and error out > i.e. we have failed to futureproof the code. Ok, I missed the part that this also fixes the fw version selection for existing platforms with a new stepping. So yes, agreed we need this for @stable. --Imre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
