Re: [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915/uc: Simplify firmware path handling

From: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@intel.com>,
	Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915/uc: Simplify firmware path handling
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:58:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1487836712.3052.13.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170222155211.GC11729@ahiler-desk.igk.intel.com>

On ke, 2017-02-22 at 16:52 +0100, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:30:49PM +0100, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:53:47PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > 
> > > Now plan for having fw_path overriden by a i915_param.guc_firmware.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps something like
> > > 	if (i915_param.guc_firmware) {
> > > 		guc->fw.path = i915_param.guc_firmware; /* needs 0400! */
> > > 		guc->fw.major_ver_wanted = -1;
> > > 		guc->fw.minor_ver_wanted = -1;
> > > 	} else if (IS_SKYLAKE....
> > > works?
> > 
> > Sorry, I do not quite understand the comment. Can you elaborate?
> 
> Nevermind, got it.
> 
> LGTM, but for it to fully work we need to make uc_fetch_fw (or however
> it will end up being named) aware that -1 have special meaning.
> 
> Now the version cross-check looks like that:
> 
> if (uc_fw->major_ver_found != uc_fw->major_ver_wanted ||
>     uc_fw->minor_ver_found < uc_fw->minor_ver_wanted) {

What Chris proposed, together with tweaking the check sounds good.

Regards, Joonas
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx