[Intel-gfx] [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for Geminilake

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, "Srivatsa, Anusha" <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com> wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:jani.nikula at linux.intel.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
>>To: Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison at gmail.com>
>>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>; Srivatsa, Anusha
>><anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>; Wajdeczko, Michal
>><Michal.Wajdeczko at intel.com>; Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>;
>>airlied at linux.ie; joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
>>stable at vger.kernel.org; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; dri-
>>devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for
>>Geminilake
>>
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> NAK on indiscriminate Cc: stable. There are zero guarantees that
>>>> older kernels will work with whatever firmware you throw at them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I included 'Cc: stable' so the patch would get added to the v4.16 and
>>> v4.15 kernels which I have tested with the patch. I found that earlier
>>> kernels didn't support the 'linux-firmware' package required to get
>>> wifi working on Intel's new Gemini Lake NUC.
>>
>>You realize that this patch should have nothing to do with wifi?
>>
>>Rodrigo, Anusha, if you think Cc: stable is appropriate, please indicate the specific
>>versions of stable it is appropriate for.
>
> Hi Jani,
>
> The stable kernel version is 4.12 and beyond.
> It is appropriate to add the CC: stable in my opinion

Who tested the firmware with v4.12 and later? We only have the CI
results against *current* drm-tip. We don't even know about v4.16.

I'm not going to ack and take responsibility for the stable backports
unless someone actually comes forward with credible Tested-bys.

BR,
Jani.


>
> Anusha
>>BR,
>>Jani.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS. How is this a "RESEND"? I haven't seen this before.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a 'RESEND' for that very reason. I initially sent the patch to
>>> the same people as a similar patch
>>> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10143637/) however after realising
>>> this omitted required addresses I added them and resent the patch.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ian
>>
>>--
>>Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center