[PATCH 0/3] Update to GuC 70.19.2 and add LNL

[PATCH 0/3] Update to GuC 70.19.2 and add LNL

[John.C.Harrison]

From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>

Update to the latest GuC release including the first release for LNL.
Also include the patch version in the expectation check as it can be
important.

Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>


John Harrison (3):
  drm/xe/uc: Include patch version in expectations
  drm/xe/guc: Update to GuC firmware 70.19.2
  drm/xe/guc: Add support for LNL firmware

 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH 1/3] drm/xe/uc: Include patch version in expectations

[John.C.Harrison]

From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>

Patch level releases can be just as important as major level releases
if they fix a critical bug. So include the patch version in the
expectation check so the user is properly informed if they need to
update.

Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
index 9dff96dfe455..d3f0fe2101a7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
@@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ struct uc_fw_entry {
 		const char *path;
 		u16 major;
 		u16 minor;
+		u16 patch;
 		bool full_ver_required;
 	};
 };
@@ -102,14 +103,14 @@ struct fw_blobs_by_type {
 };
 
 #define XE_GUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, major_ver)			\
-	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	mtl,	70, 7))		\
-	fw_def(DG2,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg2,	70, 5))		\
-	fw_def(DG1,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg1,	70, 5))		\
-	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_N,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5))		\
-	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	adlp,	70, 5))		\
-	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5))		\
-	fw_def(ROCKETLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5))		\
-	fw_def(TIGERLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5))
+	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	mtl,	70, 7, 0))	\
+	fw_def(DG2,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg2,	70, 5, 0))	\
+	fw_def(DG1,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg1,	70, 5, 0))	\
+	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_N,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))	\
+	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	adlp,	70, 5, 0))	\
+	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))	\
+	fw_def(ROCKETLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))	\
+	fw_def(TIGERLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))
 
 #define XE_HUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, no_ver)		\
 	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	no_ver(i915,	huc_gsc,	mtl))		\
@@ -121,24 +122,24 @@ struct fw_blobs_by_type {
 
 /* for the GSC FW we match the compatibility version and not the release one */
 #define XE_GSC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, major_ver)		\
-	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	gsc,	mtl,	1, 0))
+	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	gsc,	mtl,	1, 0, 0))
 
 #define MAKE_FW_PATH(dir__, uc__, shortname__, version__)			\
 	__stringify(dir__) "/" __stringify(shortname__) "_" __stringify(uc__) version__ ".bin"
 
 #define fw_filename_mmp_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_, a, b, c)			\
 	MAKE_FW_PATH(dir_, uc_, shortname_, "_" __stringify(a ## . ## b ## . ## c))
-#define fw_filename_major_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_, a, b)			\
+#define fw_filename_major_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_, a, b, c)			\
 	MAKE_FW_PATH(dir_, uc_, shortname_, "_" __stringify(a))
 #define fw_filename_no_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_)				\
 	MAKE_FW_PATH(dir_, uc_, shortname_, "")
 
 #define uc_fw_entry_mmp_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_, a, b, c)			\
 	{ fw_filename_mmp_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_, a, b, c),			\
-	  a, b, true }
-#define uc_fw_entry_major_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_, a, b)			\
-	{ fw_filename_major_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_, a, b),			\
-	  a, b }
+	  a, b, c, true }
+#define uc_fw_entry_major_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_, a, b, c)			\
+	{ fw_filename_major_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_, a, b, c),		\
+	  a, b, c }
 #define uc_fw_entry_no_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_)				\
 	{ fw_filename_no_ver(dir_, uc_, shortname_),				\
 	  0, 0 }
@@ -221,6 +222,7 @@ uc_fw_auto_select(struct xe_device *xe, struct xe_uc_fw *uc_fw)
 			uc_fw->path = entries[i].path;
 			uc_fw->versions.wanted.major = entries[i].major;
 			uc_fw->versions.wanted.minor = entries[i].minor;
+			uc_fw->versions.wanted.patch = entries[i].patch;
 			uc_fw->full_ver_required = entries[i].full_ver_required;
 
 			if (uc_fw->type == XE_UC_FW_TYPE_GSC)
@@ -340,19 +342,22 @@ int xe_uc_fw_check_version_requirements(struct xe_uc_fw *uc_fw)
 	 * Otherwise, at least the major version.
 	 */
 	if (wanted->major != found->major ||
-	    (uc_fw->full_ver_required && wanted->minor != found->minor)) {
-		drm_notice(&xe->drm, "%s firmware %s: unexpected version: %u.%u != %u.%u\n",
+	    (uc_fw->full_ver_required &&
+	     ((wanted->minor != found->minor) ||
+	      (wanted->patch != found->patch)))) {
+		drm_notice(&xe->drm, "%s firmware %s: unexpected version: %u.%u.%u != %u.%u.%u\n",
 			   xe_uc_fw_type_repr(uc_fw->type), uc_fw->path,
-			   found->major, found->minor,
-			   wanted->major, wanted->minor);
+			   found->major, found->minor, found->patch,
+			   wanted->major, wanted->minor, wanted->patch);
 		goto fail;
 	}
 
-	if (wanted->minor > found->minor) {
-		drm_notice(&xe->drm, "%s firmware (%u.%u) is recommended, but only (%u.%u) was found in %s\n",
+	if (wanted->minor > found->minor ||
+	    (wanted->minor == found->minor && wanted->patch > found->patch)) {
+		drm_notice(&xe->drm, "%s firmware (%u.%u.%u) is recommended, but only (%u.%u.%u) was found in %s\n",
 			   xe_uc_fw_type_repr(uc_fw->type),
-			   wanted->major, wanted->minor,
-			   found->major, found->minor,
+			   wanted->major, wanted->minor, wanted->patch,
+			   found->major, found->minor, found->patch,
 			   uc_fw->path);
 		drm_info(&xe->drm, "Consider updating your linux-firmware pkg or downloading from %s\n",
 			 XE_UC_FIRMWARE_URL);
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/xe/uc: Include patch version in expectations

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:30:48PM -0800, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
>From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>
>Patch level releases can be just as important as major level releases
>if they fix a critical bug. So include the patch version in the
>expectation check so the user is properly informed if they need to
>update.
>
>Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>


Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>

thanks
Lucas De Marchi

[PATCH 2/3] drm/xe/guc: Update to GuC firmware 70.19.2

[John.C.Harrison]

From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>

API compatibility version: 1.8.2

Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c | 16 ++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
index d3f0fe2101a7..d896c98dd0bb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
@@ -103,14 +103,14 @@ struct fw_blobs_by_type {
 };
 
 #define XE_GUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, major_ver)			\
-	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	mtl,	70, 7, 0))	\
-	fw_def(DG2,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg2,	70, 5, 0))	\
-	fw_def(DG1,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg1,	70, 5, 0))	\
-	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_N,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))	\
-	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	adlp,	70, 5, 0))	\
-	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))	\
-	fw_def(ROCKETLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))	\
-	fw_def(TIGERLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))
+	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	mtl,	70, 19, 2))	\
+	fw_def(DG2,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg2,	70, 19, 2))	\
+	fw_def(DG1,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg1,	70, 19, 2))	\
+	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_N,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 19, 2))	\
+	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	adlp,	70, 19, 2))	\
+	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 19, 2))	\
+	fw_def(ROCKETLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 19, 2))	\
+	fw_def(TIGERLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 19, 2))
 
 #define XE_HUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, no_ver)		\
 	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	no_ver(i915,	huc_gsc,	mtl))		\
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/xe/guc: Update to GuC firmware 70.19.2

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:30:49PM -0800, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
>From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>
>API compatibility version: 1.8.2
>
>Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>

once this passes CI and those firmware blobs are available in
linux-firmware repo,

	Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>

Lucas De Marchi

>---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
>index d3f0fe2101a7..d896c98dd0bb 100644
>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
>@@ -103,14 +103,14 @@ struct fw_blobs_by_type {
> };
>
> #define XE_GUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, major_ver)			\
>-	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	mtl,	70, 7, 0))	\
>-	fw_def(DG2,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg2,	70, 5, 0))	\
>-	fw_def(DG1,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg1,	70, 5, 0))	\
>-	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_N,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))	\
>-	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	adlp,	70, 5, 0))	\
>-	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))	\
>-	fw_def(ROCKETLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))	\
>-	fw_def(TIGERLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 5, 0))
>+	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	mtl,	70, 19, 2))	\
>+	fw_def(DG2,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg2,	70, 19, 2))	\
>+	fw_def(DG1,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg1,	70, 19, 2))	\
>+	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_N,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 19, 2))	\
>+	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	adlp,	70, 19, 2))	\
>+	fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 19, 2))	\
>+	fw_def(ROCKETLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 19, 2))	\
>+	fw_def(TIGERLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	tgl,	70, 19, 2))
>
> #define XE_HUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, no_ver)		\
> 	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	no_ver(i915,	huc_gsc,	mtl))		\
>-- 
>2.43.0
>

Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/xe/guc: Update to GuC firmware 70.19.2

[John Harrison]

On 2/2/2024 08:56, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:30:49PM -0800, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com 
> wrote:
>> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>>
>> API compatibility version: 1.8.2
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>
> once this passes CI and those firmware blobs are available in
> linux-firmware repo,
The official PR has been sent. It is now up to the firmware maintainers 
to do the merge. They are normally pretty quick about that.

John.

>
>     Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>
> Lucas De Marchi
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
>> index d3f0fe2101a7..d896c98dd0bb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
>> @@ -103,14 +103,14 @@ struct fw_blobs_by_type {
>> };
>>
>> #define XE_GUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, major_ver)            \
>> -    fw_def(METEORLAKE,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    mtl, 70, 7, 
>> 0))    \
>> -    fw_def(DG2,        major_ver(i915,    guc,    dg2,    70, 5, 
>> 0))    \
>> -    fw_def(DG1,        major_ver(i915,    guc,    dg1,    70, 5, 
>> 0))    \
>> -    fw_def(ALDERLAKE_N,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    tgl, 70, 5, 
>> 0))    \
>> -    fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    adlp, 70, 5, 
>> 0))    \
>> -    fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    tgl, 70, 5, 
>> 0))    \
>> -    fw_def(ROCKETLAKE,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    tgl, 70, 5, 
>> 0))    \
>> -    fw_def(TIGERLAKE,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    tgl,    70, 5, 0))
>> +    fw_def(METEORLAKE,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    mtl, 70, 19, 
>> 2))    \
>> +    fw_def(DG2,        major_ver(i915,    guc,    dg2,    70, 19, 
>> 2))    \
>> +    fw_def(DG1,        major_ver(i915,    guc,    dg1,    70, 19, 
>> 2))    \
>> +    fw_def(ALDERLAKE_N,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    tgl, 70, 19, 
>> 2))    \
>> +    fw_def(ALDERLAKE_P,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    adlp, 70, 19, 
>> 2))    \
>> +    fw_def(ALDERLAKE_S,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    tgl, 70, 19, 
>> 2))    \
>> +    fw_def(ROCKETLAKE,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    tgl, 70, 19, 
>> 2))    \
>> +    fw_def(TIGERLAKE,    major_ver(i915,    guc,    tgl,    70, 19, 2))
>>
>> #define XE_HUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, no_ver)        \
>>     fw_def(METEORLAKE,    no_ver(i915,    huc_gsc, mtl))        \
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>>

[PATCH 3/3] drm/xe/guc: Add support for LNL firmware

[John.C.Harrison]

From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>

First release of GuC firmware for LNL is now available, so start
using it.

Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
index d896c98dd0bb..9814c5d8538d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ struct fw_blobs_by_type {
 };
 
 #define XE_GUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, major_ver)			\
+	fw_def(LUNARLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	lnl,	70, 19, 2))	\
 	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	mtl,	70, 19, 2))	\
 	fw_def(DG2,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg2,	70, 19, 2))	\
 	fw_def(DG1,		major_ver(i915,	guc,	dg1,	70, 19, 2))	\
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/xe/guc: Add support for LNL firmware

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:30:50PM -0800, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
>From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>
>First release of GuC firmware for LNL is now available, so start
>using it.
>
>Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
>index d896c98dd0bb..9814c5d8538d 100644
>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
>@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ struct fw_blobs_by_type {
> };
>
> #define XE_GUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, major_ver)			\
>+	fw_def(LUNARLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	lnl,	70, 19, 2))	\

					  ^^^^ that should be xe

with that changed and the same condition as patch 2 fulfilled, feel free to add:

	Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>

Lucas De Marchi

✗ CI.Patch_applied: failure for Update to GuC 70.19.2 and add LNL

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: Update to GuC 70.19.2 and add LNL
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/129453/
State : failure

== Summary ==

=== Applying kernel patches on branch 'drm-tip' with base: ===
Base commit: 18a9fefd9 drm-tip: 2024y-02m-01d-21h-52m-31s UTC integration manifest
=== git am output follows ===
error: patch failed: drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c:102
error: drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c: patch does not apply
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch' to see the failed patch
Applying: drm/xe/uc: Include patch version in expectations
Patch failed at 0001 drm/xe/uc: Include patch version in expectations
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Update to GuC 70.19.2 and add LNL

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:30:47PM -0800, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
>From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>
>Update to the latest GuC release including the first release for LNL.
>Also include the patch version in the expectation check as it can be
>important.
>
>Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>

For CI to be able to test this series you have to do:

a) be on top of drm-tip, not drm-xe-next
b) revert the commits from topic branches that would conflict

	e4cfe0cd9819 ("drm/xe/guc: define LNL FW")                
	6fed16fd875e ("drm/xe/guc: define PVC FW")

c) Add the patches you have in this series
d) Add back 6fed16fd875e with conflict resolved and mention that
    specific patch is for topic/xe-for-CI only.

Lucas De Marchi

>
>
>John Harrison (3):
>  drm/xe/uc: Include patch version in expectations
>  drm/xe/guc: Update to GuC firmware 70.19.2
>  drm/xe/guc: Add support for LNL firmware
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
>-- 
>2.43.0
>

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Update to GuC 70.19.2 and add LNL

[John Harrison]

On 2/2/2024 08:53, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:30:47PM -0800, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com 
> wrote:
>> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>>
>> Update to the latest GuC release including the first release for LNL.
>> Also include the patch version in the expectation check as it can be
>> important.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>
> For CI to be able to test this series you have to do:
>
> a) be on top of drm-tip, not drm-xe-next
Is this instruction special for this particular patch set because of the 
for-ci conflict? The wiki page is definitely still saying to base 
patches on drm-xe-next from fdo:/drm/xe/kernel.git.

Is there an Xe specific repo for an Xe specific drm-tip? Or are you 
meaning the genuine drm-tip from fdo:/drm-tip?

John.


> b) revert the commits from topic branches that would conflict
>
>     e4cfe0cd9819 ("drm/xe/guc: define LNL FW")     6fed16fd875e 
> ("drm/xe/guc: define PVC FW")
>
> c) Add the patches you have in this series
> d) Add back 6fed16fd875e with conflict resolved and mention that
>    specific patch is for topic/xe-for-CI only.
>
> Lucas De Marchi
>
>>
>>
>> John Harrison (3):
>>  drm/xe/uc: Include patch version in expectations
>>  drm/xe/guc: Update to GuC firmware 70.19.2
>>  drm/xe/guc: Add support for LNL firmware
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>>

Re: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Update to GuC 70.19.2 and add LNL

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:51:36AM -0800, John Harrison wrote:
>On 2/2/2024 08:53, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:30:47PM -0800, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com 
>>wrote:
>>>From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>>>
>>>Update to the latest GuC release including the first release for LNL.
>>>Also include the patch version in the expectation check as it can be
>>>important.
>>>
>>>Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>>
>>For CI to be able to test this series you have to do:
>>
>>a) be on top of drm-tip, not drm-xe-next
>Is this instruction special for this particular patch set because of 
>the for-ci conflict? The wiki page is definitely still saying to base 

If you're talking about our internal documentation, it's
outdated since drm-xe-next got merged upstream. Documentation for
drm-xe-next is now maintained upstream as part of drm-tip too.

>patches on drm-xe-next from fdo:/drm/xe/kernel.git.

patches targeting xe are *merged* through drm-xe-next. Usually. And it
usually applies fine if you are on top of drm-tip or drm-xe-next, but
not in this case as we have the topic branch that conflicts.

Since when we got merged, drm-xe-next is "just one more branch" that
forms drm-tip:

https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/drm-xe.html

and drm-tip, as an integration branch, is the merge of all its component
branches that is done on every push to any component branch.

>
>Is there an Xe specific repo for an Xe specific drm-tip? Or are you 
>meaning the genuine drm-tip from fdo:/drm-tip?

not sure I understand the question, but I meant the one and only
drm-tip as per doc above.

Lucas De Marchi

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Update to GuC 70.19.2 and add LNL

[John Harrison]

On 2/2/2024 11:35, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:51:36AM -0800, John Harrison wrote:
>> On 2/2/2024 08:53, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:30:47PM -0800, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Update to the latest GuC release including the first release for LNL.
>>>> Also include the patch version in the expectation check as it can be
>>>> important.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>>>
>>> For CI to be able to test this series you have to do:
>>>
>>> a) be on top of drm-tip, not drm-xe-next
>> Is this instruction special for this particular patch set because of 
>> the for-ci conflict? The wiki page is definitely still saying to base 
>
> If you're talking about our internal documentation, it's
> outdated since drm-xe-next got merged upstream. Documentation for
> drm-xe-next is now maintained upstream as part of drm-tip too.
It would be useful if the internal doc could be updated to reflect this 
change. You can't really complain at people when they are correctly 
following instructions!


>
>> patches on drm-xe-next from fdo:/drm/xe/kernel.git.
>
> patches targeting xe are *merged* through drm-xe-next. Usually. And it
> usually applies fine if you are on top of drm-tip or drm-xe-next, but
> not in this case as we have the topic branch that conflicts.
>
> Since when we got merged, drm-xe-next is "just one more branch" that
> forms drm-tip:
>
> https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/drm-xe.html
>
> and drm-tip, as an integration branch, is the merge of all its component
> branches that is done on every push to any component branch.
I am aware of how drm-tip is constructed. I just being confused by the 
conflicting documentation.

>
>>
>> Is there an Xe specific repo for an Xe specific drm-tip? Or are you 
>> meaning the genuine drm-tip from fdo:/drm-tip?
>
> not sure I understand the question, but I meant the one and only
> drm-tip as per doc above.
Okay. That's what I meant. I just wasn't sure if there was some new, Xe 
specific version of that entire process alongside the regular one. As I 
said, the internal doc describes a very Xe specific process so it is 
confusing as to how much is Xe only versus how much is now just regular drm.

John.


>
> Lucas De Marchi