[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 47/47] drm/i915/guc: Unblock GuC submission on Gen11+

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:27 PM Martin Peres <martin.peres at free.fr> wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2021 11:14, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:58:25 -0700
> > John Harrison <john.c.harrison at intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/30/2021 01:22, Martin Peres wrote:
> >>> On 24/06/2021 10:05, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >>>> From: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Unblock GuC submission on Gen11+ platforms.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h            |  1 +
> >>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c |  8 ++++++++
> >>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.h |  3 +--
> >>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c             | 14 +++++++++-----
> >>>>    4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> >>>> index 7a69c3c027e9..61be0aa81492 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> >>>> @@ -34,8 +34,15 @@ static void uc_expand_default_options(struct
> >>>> intel_uc *uc)
> >>>>            return;
> >>>>        }
> >>>>    -    /* Default: enable HuC authentication only */
> >>>> -    i915->params.enable_guc = ENABLE_GUC_LOAD_HUC;
> >>>> +    /* Intermediate platforms are HuC authentication only */
> >>>> +    if (IS_DG1(i915) || IS_ALDERLAKE_S(i915)) {
> >>>> +        drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "Disabling GuC only due to old
> >>>> platform\n");
> >>>
> >>> This comment does not seem accurate, given that DG1 is barely out, and
> >>> ADL is not out yet. How about:
> >>>
> >>> "Disabling GuC on untested platforms"?
> >>>
> >> Just because something is not in the shops yet does not mean it is new.
> >> Technology is always obsolete by the time it goes on sale.
> >
> > That is a very good reason to not use terminology like "new", "old",
> > "current", "modern" etc. at all.
> >
> > End users like me definitely do not share your interpretation of "old".
>
> Yep, old and new is relative. In the end, what matters is the validation
> effort, which is why I was proposing "untested platforms".
>
> Also, remember that you are not writing these messages for Intel
> engineers, but instead are writing for Linux *users*.

It's drm_dbg. Users don't read this stuff, at least not users with no
clue what the driver does and stuff like that.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch