[PATCH] drm/amd: Add the capability to mark certain firmware as "required"

[Alex Deucher]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 10:56 AM Lazar, Lijo <lijo.lazar at amd.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/4/2024 7:51 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 12:47 AM Lazar, Lijo <lijo.lazar at amd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/4/2024 10:44 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> +enum amdgpu_ucode_required {
> >>>>> +    AMDGPU_UCODE_NOT_REQUIRED,
> >>>>> +    AMDGPU_UCODE_REQUIRED,
> >>>>
> >>>> Couldn't this be handled in another API instead of having to flag every
> >>>> load? By default, every ucode is required and if optional may be skipped
> >>>> with amdgpu_ucode_request_optional() API?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I guess this would be a smaller patch, but 6 eggs one hand, half dozen
> >>> in the other?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I thought only ISP and gpu_info (no longer there for newer SOCs) fall
> >> into the optional ones so far. The usage is rare, similar to the
> >> nowarn() API usage.
> >>
> >> Also, as far as I know, the cap microcode is a must whenever used. That
> >> is not optional.
> >>
> >
> > The cap firmware is definitely optional.  Some customers use it, some don't.
> >
>
> I thought optional is something that can be ignored even if FW is not
> found and then driver load proceeds.
>
> What is the expected driver action if we classify cap firmware as
> optional and then it fails on a customer system that expects it?

I guess if the customer expects it, they can make sure it's there.
I'm not sure how you can have both without it being optional.  For
customers that don't use it, requiring it would break them if it
wasn't present.

Alex

>
> Thanks,
> Lijo
>
>
> > Alex
> >
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Lijo
> >>
> >>> Alex - what's your take?
> >>
>