Intel-GFX Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Julia Filipchuk" <julia.filipchuk@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Test GuC v70.49.5 for TGL, ADL-P, DG1, PVC
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 18:55:36 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260817185537.7DAAC1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260817184548.2905639-2-julia.filipchuk@intel.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] The patch is explicitly marked 'for testing only' and removes backward compatibility for standard major-version firmware binaries, causing GPU initialization failures.
- [Medium] The commit message claims to test GuC v70.49.5 for PVC (Ponte Vecchio), but the patch contains no firmware definitions for PVC.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Test GuC v70.49.5 for TGL, ADL-P, DG1, PVC ---
commit d306b2937eb396389136a560d117b8f7375ddcaf
Author: Julia Filipchuk <julia.filipchuk@intel.com>

drm/i915/guc: Test GuC v70.49.5 for TGL, ADL-P, DG1, PVC

This patch updates the GuC firmware definitions to test version 70.49.5
for several Intel platforms. It replaces the major version fallback with
strict exact-version requirements for the targeted platforms.

> drm/i915/guc: Test GuC v70.49.5 for TGL, ADL-P, DG1, PVC

[Severity: Medium]
The commit message mentions testing GuC for PVC, but is there any change
for PVC in this patch?

Looking at the INTEL_GUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS macro, there are no firmware
definitions added or modified for PVC. Should PVC be removed from the
commit message, or is a hunk missing?

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c
> index 7fac97fe30a63..7e5567410235c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c
> @@ -90,15 +90,11 @@ void intel_uc_fw_change_status(struct intel_uc_fw *uc_fw,
>  #define INTEL_GUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, guc_maj, guc_mmp) \
>  	fw_def(METEORLAKE,   0, guc_maj(mtl,  70, 53, 0)) \
>  	fw_def(DG2,          0, guc_maj(dg2,  70, 53, 0)) \
> -	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,  0, guc_maj(adlp, 70, 12, 1)) \
> -	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,  0, guc_mmp(adlp, 70, 1, 1)) \
> -	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,  0, guc_mmp(adlp, 69, 0, 3)) \
> -	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,  0, guc_maj(tgl,  70, 12, 1)) \
> -	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,  0, guc_mmp(tgl,  70, 1, 1)) \
> -	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,  0, guc_mmp(tgl,  69, 0, 3)) \
> -	fw_def(DG1,          0, guc_maj(dg1,  70, 5, 1)) \
> -	fw_def(ROCKETLAKE,   0, guc_mmp(tgl,  70, 1, 1)) \
> -	fw_def(TIGERLAKE,    0, guc_mmp(tgl,  70, 1, 1)) \
> +	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,  0, guc_mmp(adlp, 70, 49, 5)) \

[Severity: Critical]
Does removing the guc_maj fallback here cause GPU initialization to fail
if the exact 70.49.5 patch version is missing?

Without the major version fallback, it seems the driver probe will
deterministically fail on standard linux-firmware installations that do
not have this exact minor version blob, leading to a loss of hardware
acceleration and display.

Could this regression be problematic if the file isn't available?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260817184548.2905639-2-julia.filipchuk@intel.com?part=1

  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-17 18:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-17 18:45 [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Test GuC v70.49.5 for TGL, ADL-P, DG1, PVC Julia Filipchuk
2026-08-17 18:55 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-17 19:38 ` ✗ i915.CI.BAT: failure for " Patchwork
2026-08-17 21:03   ` Julia Filipchuk

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260817185537.7DAAC1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=julia.filipchuk@intel.com \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox