From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8173C47DDB for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:11:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D67310EC78; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:11:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.14]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B380F11366D for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:11:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1706652692; x=1738188692; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=cVQaC8wcsqLCwoNyxumoiEh5NTk3Uq5IMxsfsgozcHo=; b=KyRk+tux+Ds3HcFKyU9X3PGVtAW7jx5aAFqw8XRmDqHm2TQuuLiGHtDu YpoAg3JaF1le+rJlDPXRHw+UmFz7sKOiEjBOGOezN3oyD7xCZXWjs3b/y 1mfnB3Ud5McWV1mMdzumSCCWgtWrEoLWCDSl9SxkUZs0/xs7ATmP7Sr0R 5XLyoC0ODOMTzWXgfmzRNOGBdbxOYCMXhCO859xWAlJ6j68WKXps9rCbo skw+R39dpL5So8xiA1Pk4irHg4Nz1ji/2+5AnXX3Wp6/kiaSyVYK/0XG4 ddeAfUfoBeOM00pYjdimpcSy/a5nyATPPjf7wC4hAXdh/64Th5a83CvP5 g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10969"; a="3291332" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,230,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="3291332" Received: from fmviesa002.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.142]) by orvoesa106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jan 2024 14:11:31 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,230,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="22556055" Received: from orsosgc001.jf.intel.com (HELO unerlige-ril.intel.com) ([10.165.21.138]) by fmviesa002-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jan 2024 14:11:29 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:11:29 -0800 Message-ID: <85eddybhf2.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" To: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/xe: Remove ci-only GuC FW definitions In-Reply-To: References: <20231219200023.2502159-1-daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com> <85h6iubriv.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Goj=F2?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/28.2 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Xe graphics driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, Rodrigo Vivi Errors-To: intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-xe" 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 :/