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

[Daniel Vetter]

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

> 
> >
> >  MODULE_FIRMWARE(I915_CSR_SKL);
> >
> > --
> > 2.0.2
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rodrigo Vivi
> Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch