[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: changed the filename of csr firmware

[Timo Aaltonen]

On 27.05.2015 14:34, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:21:56PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Animesh Manna <animesh.manna at intel.com> wrote:
>>> Naming convention of csr firmware will be -
>>> <platform>_dmc_<api-version>_<minor-version>.bin
>>>
>>> Accordingly updated the same in code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
>>> index fec2bc5..9bd05bf 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
>>> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
>>>   * low-power state and comes back to normal.
>>>   */
>>>
>>> -#define I915_CSR_SKL "i915/skl_dmc_ver4.bin"
>>> +#define I915_CSR_SKL "i915/skl_dmc_1_4.bin"
>>
>> I believe in this case the install instructions should point to copy
>> instead of linking it, but not hardcode the release version.
>>
>> So shouldn't it be i915/skl_dmc_ver1.bin  then?
>>
>> or  i915/skl_dmc_ver1_4.bin in worst case...
> 
> While at it, can we perhaps _not_ hardcode the minor revision? Hardcoding
> the minor revision torpedoes the entire concept of even having a minor
> revision. If the firmware team can't do proper abi versioning, then imo we
> should just put one number for each and keep it at that.
> -Daniel

Can we please settle on something? I'd rather have the csr fw in
linux-firmware quite soon, so that the driver wouldn't give an ugly
assert when csr doesn't work.

-- 
t