On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:31:22AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 24/11/2016 08:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:15:31AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>
> >>On 24/11/2016 07:13, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:52:38PM -0800, Anusha Srivatsa wrote:
> >>>>Remove the enable_guc_loading parameter. Load the GuC on
> >>>>plaforms that have GuC. All issues we found so far are related
> >>>>to GuC features like the command submission, but no bug is related
> >>>>to the guc loading itself.
> >>>>
> >>>>This addresses the case when we need GuC loaded even with no GuC feature
> >>>>in use, like - GuC  authenticating HuC loading.
> >>>
> >>>Why not just load the firmware if it may be used?
> >>
> >>It was discussed briefly in the other thread, but I suppose as soon
> >>as the HuC patches go in that would be always so it may not be that
> >>useful.
> >>
> >>Unless there is a reason to add a HuC enable/disable parameter in
> >>general. I have no idea on that one.
> >
> >In hindsight, we should have had i915.enable_dmc to easily protect users
> >against failures. History says we will regret enabling a new piece of
> >hw/fw without a feature option.
> 
> So..
> 
>  1. Add i915.enable_huc, default to enabled
>  2. Unexport i915.enable_guc_loading
>  3. Gate enable_guc_loading by i915.enable_huc and
> i915.enable_guc_submission

Aye, that would be my preference.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to