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

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>]

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?

Daniele

>
> I actually reached this patch after bisecting and realizing FW had been
> moved to xe-for-ci branch :/