[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/guc: Skip suspend/resume GuC action on platforms w/o GuC submission

[Hiatt, Don]

Hi Stuart/Chris,

> From: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 9:20 AM
> To: Hiatt, Don <don.hiatt at intel.com>; Summers, Stuart
> <stuart.summers at intel.com>; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/guc: Skip suspend/resume GuC
> action on platforms w/o GuC submission
> 
> Quoting Summers, Stuart (2019-11-15 17:12:58)
> > On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 17:11 -0800, don.hiatt at intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Don Hiatt <don.hiatt at intel.com>
> > >
> > > On some platforms (e.g. KBL) that do not support GuC submission, but
> > > the user enabled the GuC communication (e.g for HuC authentication)
> > > calling the GuC EXIT_S_STATE action results in lose of ability to
> > > enter RC6. We can remove the GuC suspend/resume entirely as we do
> > > not need to save the GuC submission status.
> > >
> > > v2: Do not suspend/resume the GuC on platforms that do not support
> > >     Guc Submission.
> > > v3: Fix typo, move suspend logic to remove goto.
> > > v4: Use intel_guc_submission_is_enabled() to check GuC submission
> > >     status.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Don Hiatt <don.hiatt at intel.com>
> >
> > Any reason not to just combine both of these into a single patch?
> 
> Also please remember to include the bugzilla link, ask if the reporter
> wants to be credited, and most important of all a Fixes: so we can
> backport it correctly. If there is no singular cause, point at the
> "guc/huc enabling by default" patch.
> 
> Last but not least, think about how did we miss in this CI and provide
> a Testcase: to verify that it is fixed and stays fixed.
> -Chris


Hi Stuart/Chris.

Actually, I'll just combine them now. I think your point is valid and being a single
patch will make it easier to backport and track wrt to Chris's comments.

Thanks,

don