Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/xe: Remove ci-only GuC FW definitions

["Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:48:50 -0800, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>
> On 1/30/2024 10:33 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 12:00:20 -0800, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
> >> index 73d6938c921d..9dff96dfe455 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc_fw.c
> >> @@ -102,9 +102,7 @@ struct fw_blobs_by_type {
> >>   };
> >>
> >>   #define XE_GUC_FIRMWARE_DEFS(fw_def, mmp_ver, major_ver)			\
> >> -	fw_def(LUNARLAKE,	mmp_ver(xe,	guc,	lnl,	70, 6, 8))	\
> >>	fw_def(METEORLAKE,	major_ver(i915,	guc,	mtl,	70, 7))		\
> >> -	fw_def(PVC,		mmp_ver(xe,	guc,	pvc,	70, 9, 1))	\
> >>	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))		\
> > I think this commit should include an error message saying FW not found (or
> > whatever). A lot of people have spent a lot of time because probe just
> > fails with "xe: probe of 0000:00:02.0 failed with error -22" without any
> > indication of why?
>
> There already is a drm_notice for the firmware fetch failure, in
> uc_fw_request(). Are you say that's not coming out in dmesg?

Because from what I am seeing, xe_uc_fw_init() is not failing, xe_guc_init
is returning from if (!xe_uc_fw_is_enabled()):

int xe_guc_init(struct xe_guc *guc)
{
        struct xe_device *xe = guc_to_xe(guc);
        struct xe_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
        int ret;

        guc->fw.type = XE_UC_FW_TYPE_GUC;
        ret = xe_uc_fw_init(&guc->fw);
        if (ret)
                goto out;

        if (!xe_uc_fw_is_enabled(&guc->fw))
                return 0;

And finally xe_uc_init fails, not because xe_guc_init fails, but because
xe_wopcm_init fails :/