On 30/11/2016 23:31, Anusha Srivatsa wrote:
This patch adds the HuC Loading for the BXT by using the updated file construction.Version 1.7 of the HuC firmware. v2: rebased. v3: rebased on top of drm-tip Cc: Jeff Mcgee <jeff.mc...@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.sriva...@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff McGee <jeff.mc...@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c index 663fcc4..6357c19 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c @@ -40,6 +40,10 @@ * Note that HuC firmware loading must be done before GuC loading. */ +#define BXT_FW_MAJOR 01 +#define BXT_FW_MINOR 07 +#define BXT_BLD_NUM 1398 + #define SKL_FW_MAJOR 01 #define SKL_FW_MINOR 07 #define SKL_BLD_NUM 1398 @@ -52,6 +56,9 @@ SKL_FW_MINOR, SKL_BLD_NUM) MODULE_FIRMWARE(I915_SKL_HUC_UCODE); +#define I915_BXT_HUC_UCODE HUC_FW_PATH(bxt, BXT_FW_MAJOR, \ + BXT_FW_MINOR, BXT_BLD_NUM) +MODULE_FIRMWARE(I915_BXT_HUC_UCODE); /** * huc_ucode_xfer() - DMA's the firmware * @dev_priv: the drm device @@ -159,6 +166,10 @@ void intel_huc_init(struct drm_device *dev) fw_path = I915_SKL_HUC_UCODE; huc_fw->major_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MAJOR; huc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = SKL_FW_MINOR; + } else if (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv)) { + fw_path = I915_BXT_HUC_UCODE; + huc_fw->major_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MAJOR; + huc_fw->minor_ver_wanted = BXT_FW_MINOR; } huc_fw->uc_fw_path = fw_path;
Build number in the file name still worries me. Last time I've asked about it the thread kind of died off so I will re-state it.
My concern is that if we will be getting firmware releases with the same major-minor but different build numbers, then embedding the build number into the driver prevents loading of a newer firmware unless the kernel is also updated.
I am not sure if that is what we want. Perhaps it is not expected at all that will happen in production so it is not a concern?
Or if it could happen, perhaps we should either push back on the scheme - drop the build number and bump the minor in all cases, or alternatively for our purposes drop the build number from the driver and have a symlinked scheme on disk?
Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
