Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/tgl: Remove require_force_probe protection

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2020, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 12:26:34PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:07 PM José Roberto de Souza
>> > <jose.souza@intel.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > We have a few TGL machines in our CI and it is mostly green with
>> > > failures in tests that will not impact future Linux installations.
>> > > Also there is no warnings, errors, flickering or any visual defects
>> > > while doing ordinary tasks like browsing and editing documents in a
>> > > dual monitor setup.
>> > >
>> > > As a reminder i915.require_force_probe was created to protect
>> > > future Linux installation's iso images that might contain a
>> > > kernel from the enabling time of the new platform. Without this
>> > > protection most of linux installation was recommending
>> > > nomodeset option during installation that was getting stick
>> > > there after installation.
>> > >
>> > > Reference: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/fi-tgl-u.html
>> > > Reference: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/shard-tglb.html
>> > > Cc: James Ausmus <james.ausmus@intel.com>
>> > > Cc: Jani Saarinen <jani.saarinen@intel.com>
>> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>> > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>> > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
>> > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>> >
>> > Also, I think it would be good to have this in 5.6 rather than 5.7.
>> > Yes, it's late in the merge window, but it falls in the case of "New
>> > device IDs and quirks are also accepted." of the stable kernel rules,
>> > so could as well just go directly to this kernel. Rodrigo, is it
>> > possible?
>>
>> Jani is on charge of the 5.6 so I will defer this decision to him.
>>
>> But in general we always refused to do this because this is a enabling
>> kind of thing and not a fix per say. Okay, you might argue that it is
>> a device ID and that would be accepted on stable so why not also on
>> fixes cycle, but my fear is that we haven't properly validated that
>> on 5.6 without the many changes, fixes and workarounds that are
>> only going towards 5.7 and not 5.6.
>
> oh.. never mind, checking now the log and we did have several fixes going
> to 5.7 and not 5.6.
>
> So, let's merge this in dinq only.

Agreed.

BR,
Jani.


>
> Thanks
> Lucas De Marchi
>
>>
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > Lucas De Marchi
>> >
>> > > ---
>> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c | 1 -
>> > >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
>> > > index 24b1f0ce8743..2146b9a865ba 100644
>> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
>> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
>> > > @@ -822,7 +822,6 @@ static const struct intel_device_info tgl_info = {
>> > >         GEN12_FEATURES,
>> > >         PLATFORM(INTEL_TIGERLAKE),
>> > >         .pipe_mask = BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_C) | BIT(PIPE_D),
>> > > -       .require_force_probe = 1,
>> > >         .display.has_modular_fia = 1,
>> > >         .engine_mask =
>> > >                 BIT(RCS0) | BIT(BCS0) | BIT(VECS0) | BIT(VCS0) | BIT(VCS2),
>> > > --
>> > > 2.25.1
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
>> > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Lucas De Marchi

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx