lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRE: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for Geminilake
    Date
    Hi all:

    We tested GLK DMC 1.04 FW in last week of September 2017, using the latest drm-tip version for that time (4.14.0-rc2) and according to our results we could declare this FW as acceptable and healthy to be used with kernel version 4.14 .
    However, we cannot guarantee quality and healthy of this FW if it is used in top of current drm-tip kernel (4.17-rc0).

    Best Regards
    Luis Botello


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Srivatsa, Anusha
    Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 1:30 PM
    To: Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>; Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>; Botello Ortega, Luis <luis.botello.ortega@intel.com>; Martinez Monroy, Elio <elio.martinez.monroy@intel.com>
    Cc: Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@gmail.com>; airlied@linux.ie; Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; stable@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Wajdeczko, Michal <Michal.Wajdeczko@intel.com>
    Subject: RE: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for Geminilake



    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Vivi, Rodrigo
    >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:04 AM
    >To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
    >Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com>; Ian W MORRISON
    ><ianwmorrison@gmail.com>; airlied@linux.ie; Greg KH
    ><gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-
    >kernel@vger.kernel.org; stable@vger.kernel.org; dri-
    >devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Wajdeczko, Michal
    ><Michal.Wajdeczko@intel.com>
    >Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for
    >Geminilake
    >
    >On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:02:52PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
    >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, "Srivatsa, Anusha" <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com> wrote:
    >> >>-----Original Message-----
    >> >>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:jani.nikula@linux.intel.com]
    >> >>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
    >> >>To: Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@gmail.com>
    >> >>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>; Srivatsa, Anusha
    >> >><anusha.srivatsa@intel.com>; Wajdeczko, Michal
    >> >><Michal.Wajdeczko@intel.com>; Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>;
    >> >>airlied@linux.ie; joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com;
    >> >>linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; stable@vger.kernel.org;
    >> >>intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri- devel@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@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 understand your concerns, but the problem was that our old process
    >was a bit
    >(lot?) messed and there was the unreliable time until the firmware
    >really lands on linux-firmware.git. So MODULE_FIRMWARE call was only
    >added after firmware was really there on firmware repository but it wasn't about the testing.
    >
    >In other words, the bump version patch was merged after tested, but
    >MODULE_FIRMWARE was left behind because firmware blob took a while to
    >get pulled into linux-firmware.git and we end up forgetting to add it there.
    >
    >In my opinion it should be safe to add the MODULE_FIRMWARE there based
    >on the tests from when the version was bumped.

    Luis, Elio, can you guys confirm that this firmware is tested and healthy? And also, give a tested-by to this patch please?

    Thanks,
    Anusha
    >> 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
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> dri-devel mailing list
    >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
    >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-04-21 03:22    [W:5.210 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site