Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[Alexandre Demers]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 13:09 Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher at amd.com>
wrote:

>
>
> *From:* amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Christian König
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:37 PM
> *To:* Alexandre Demers; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
> *Subject:* Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu
>
>
>
> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
> the amdgpu driver?
>
> Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing the one
> used with radeon.
>
> Actually, we should probably stick the same one as radeon for now until we
> can verify the new firmware in general.  Easier to start with a known
> working case.
>

OK. Then,  is it expected to have a validation failure with the current
firmware? Is the header compatible with how the validation is done under
VCE2 and others or should I keep how it was done under radeon?


>
>
> BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue there as
> well?
>
> VCE works on CIK.  We ported VCE and UVD to CIK as part of the initial
> amdgpu bring up.
>

I've been using VCE2 port as my template for VCE1. My initial intention was
to work on UVD, but I ended up plugging in VCE in the first place. UVD is
on my todo list right next, I was expecting to working on it after fixing
the VCE part.


>
> Alex
>
>
>
> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing
> to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has
> been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
>
> UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When the
> blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into problems
> with power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power level).
>
>
OK, but right now it is disabled, so the situation wouldn't be worst isn't
it?


> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need
> to be done?
>
> Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new firmware that
> is most likely a futile effort.
>

I'll send a patch then, and we'll navigate from there. This will allow me
to work on UVD in parallel.

Alexandre Demers


>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last few
> weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to see how
> it goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware validation (size
> doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm
> testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti).
>
>
>
> Three questions then:
>
> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
> the amdgpu driver?
>
> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing
> to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has
> been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
>
> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need
> to be done?
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Alexandre Demers
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> amd-gfx mailing list
>
> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/attachments/20170614/f2ea9bc9/attachment.html>