[PATCH topic/xe-for-ci] drm/xe/ptl: Add GuC firmware definition

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 04:14:23PM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 10:01:41PM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>and actually Cc John.
>>
>>Lucas De Marchi
>>
>>On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:58:15PM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>>On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:39:20AM -0700, Matt Atwood wrote:
>>>>From: Clint Taylor <clinton.a.taylor at intel.com>
>>>>
>>>>Define the GuC firmware to load on the platform.
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Clint Taylor <clinton.a.taylor at intel.com>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Matt Atwood <matthew.s.atwood at intel.com>
>>>
>>>+John
>>>
>>>We can't apply this until the firmware is available at
>>>https://gitlab.com/kernel-firmware/drm-firmware/-/tree/intel-staging?ref_type=heads
>
>so, after some back and forth on the best approach here: let's apply
>this patch as is.
>
>I have a patch that allows adding entries in the table behind a build
>config, that we can set on CI config. That config would hopefully not be
>set by any distros packaging drm-tip, so they wouldn't see any warning
>during initramfs creation. However in practice this isn't of much
>value:  the warning is non-fatal and anyone looking at drm-tip could
>deal with it.  I very much doubt any package is actually following
>https://gitlab.com/kernel-firmware/drm-firmware/ for those staging
>firmware. First of all because we recently moved it from another repo
>and nobody noticed.
>
>On the other hand, adding a config needed by developers means that when
>they forget to set it, we will get  a bug report that PTL is not loading
>due to missing firmware entry in the table.
>
>So... let's try to keep things simple and fallback to a more complex one
>if things don't go as planned.
>
>Applying (soon) to topic/xe-for-ci.


and pushed. This and the HuC one.

thanks
Lucas De Marchi