[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/huc: Introduce enable_huc parameter

[Michal Wajdeczko]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:24:56AM -0800, anushasr wrote:
> From: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>
> 
> Add a new kernel parameter: enable_huc. This parameter
> controls HuC functionality. If this parameter
> is set to 1, it suggests that HuC functionality is being
> used and also that the GuC has to be loaded. GuC has to be
> loaded in order to authenticate the HuC.
> 
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Arek <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c      | 5 +++++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h      | 1 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c | 4 ++++
>  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
> index 0e280fb..1d9c306 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ struct i915_params i915 __read_mostly = {
>  	.verbose_state_checks = 1,
>  	.nuclear_pageflip = 0,
>  	.edp_vswing = 0,
> +	.enable_huc = 1,
>  	.enable_guc_loading = 0,
>  	.enable_guc_submission = 0,
>  	.guc_log_level = -1,
> @@ -216,6 +217,10 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(edp_vswing,
>  		 "(0=use value from vbt [default], 1=low power swing(200mV),"
>  		 "2=default swing(400mV))");
>  
> +module_param_named(enable_huc, i915.enable_huc, int, 0400);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(enable_huc,
> +		"Enable HuC usage. If enabled,load GuC (1:enabled (default), 0:disabled)");
> +
>  module_param_named_unsafe(enable_guc_loading, i915.enable_guc_loading, int, 0400);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(enable_guc_loading,
>  		"Enable GuC firmware loading "
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
> index 8e433de..7b0523b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ struct i915_params {
>  	int disable_power_well;
>  	int enable_ips;
>  	int invert_brightness;
> +	int enable_huc;
>  	int enable_guc_loading;
>  	int enable_guc_submission;
>  	int guc_log_level;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c
> index 8137979..a545f76 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c
> @@ -166,6 +166,10 @@ void intel_huc_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	huc_fw->load_status = INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_NONE;
>  	huc_fw->fw_type = INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_HUC;
>  
> +	if (!i915.enable_huc)
> +		DRM_ERROR("HuC not enabled. Will not be loaded\n");

Is this really an error ? Maybe DRM_INFO ?
What if value of this param conflicts with HAS_HUC_UCODE ?
Shouldn't we have some 'sanitize' code for this ?
Or maybe we should check this param after HAS_HUC check below ?

Michal

> +		return;
> +
>  	if (!HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
>  		return;
>  
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx