[Intel-gfx] kbl_guc and bxt_guc firmware missing from linux-firmware

[Jani Nikula]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noted that kbl_guc_ver9_14.bin and bxt_guc_ver8_7.bin are not in
> linux-firmware despite being available here:
>
>  https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads/firmware
>
> Is there some reason they haven't been pusehd out to linux-firmware,
> e.g. are they not yet stable or something like that? Any reason we
> shouldn't ship those files in Ubuntu's linux-firmware?

None that I know of. Rodrigo, please send the pull request to
linux-firmware if you haven't already.

> Frankly, the practice of adding MODULE_FIRMWARE statements to i915 for
> files which aren't in linux-firmware has become a significant annoyance
> to me as Ubuntu's linux-firmware package maintainer. I'm getting a
> steady stream of bug reports from users about the "Possible missing
> firmware ..." messages from mkinitramfs, to the point that I've started
> removing the MODULE_FIRMWARE statements for those files from our
> kernels.

Admittedly we've probably done that even before the firmware has hit
01.org, and we should fix this. We don't have a long history of dealing
with firmware blobs, and your feedback is appreciated.

I think my main question is, what are the downsides of requesting a
firmware even if it hasn't been declared using a MODULE_FIRMWARE
statement? I don't see anything preventing that. Is MODULE_FIRMWARE
purely informational, to help ensure the packaging gets it right?

We do need to have the firmware loading code in place long before we
actually publish the firmware, to test the stuff. Could we get away with
adding the MODULE_FIRMWARE statements only after the blobs have hit
linux-firmware?


BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center