From: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
As the Geminilake firmware is now merged to linux-firmware.git
use MODUE_FIRMWARE to load the firmware.
This removes the error message in the dmesg log:
i915 0000:00:02.0: Direct firmware load for
i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin failed with error -2
i915 0000:00:02.0: Failed to load DMC firmware
i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin. Disabling runtime power management.
i915 0000:00:02.0: DMC firmware homepage:
https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads/firmware
and now shows that the firmware has correctly loaded:
[drm] Finished loading DMC firmware i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin (v1.4)
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
index 41e6c75a7f3c..f9550ea46c26 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
*/
#define I915_CSR_GLK "i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin"
+MODULE_FIRMWARE(I915_CSR_GLK);
#define GLK_CSR_VERSION_REQUIRED CSR_VERSION(1, 4)
#define I915_CSR_CNL "i915/cnl_dmc_ver1_07.bin"
--
2.11.0
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
>
> As the Geminilake firmware is now merged to linux-firmware.git
> use MODUE_FIRMWARE to load the firmware.
>
> This removes the error message in the dmesg log:
>
> i915 0000:00:02.0: Direct firmware load for
> i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin failed with error -2
> i915 0000:00:02.0: Failed to load DMC firmware
> i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin. Disabling runtime power management.
> i915 0000:00:02.0: DMC firmware homepage:
> https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads/firmware
>
> and now shows that the firmware has correctly loaded:
>
> [drm] Finished loading DMC firmware i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin (v1.4)
>
> Cc: [email protected]
NAK on indiscriminate Cc: stable. There are zero guarantees that older
kernels will work with whatever firmware you throw at them.
Anusha, Rodrigo, are we even ready to do this in our -next?
BR,
Jani.
PS. How is this a "RESEND"? I haven't seen this before.
> Signed-off-by: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
> index 41e6c75a7f3c..f9550ea46c26 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> */
>
> #define I915_CSR_GLK "i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin"
> +MODULE_FIRMWARE(I915_CSR_GLK);
> #define GLK_CSR_VERSION_REQUIRED CSR_VERSION(1, 4)
>
> #define I915_CSR_CNL "i915/cnl_dmc_ver1_07.bin"
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
<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.
>
> 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
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> 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.
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
On 11 April 2018 at 22:27, Jani Nikula <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> 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?
>
Yes. Runtime power management depends on the patch but when distros
such as Ubuntu are installed on a Intel Gemini Lake NUC as an example,
wifi/bluetooth depends on Intel Wireless-AC 9462 which in turn depends
on v4.15 as a minimum so my logic was to add the patch to 4.15 and later.
> Rodrigo, Anusha, if you think Cc: stable is appropriate, please indicate
> the specific versions of stable it is appropriate for.
>
Thanks you..
Best regards,
Ian
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
>To: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <[email protected]>; Srivatsa, Anusha
><[email protected]>; Wajdeczko, Michal
><[email protected]>; Greg KH <[email protected]>;
>[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>[email protected]; [email protected]; dri-
>[email protected]
>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for
>Geminilake
>
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> 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
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
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, "Srivatsa, Anusha" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:[email protected]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
>>To: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
>>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <[email protected]>; Srivatsa, Anusha
>><[email protected]>; Wajdeczko, Michal
>><[email protected]>; Greg KH <[email protected]>;
>>[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>>[email protected]; [email protected]; dri-
>>[email protected]
>>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for
>>Geminilake
>>
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> 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'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
Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-04-17 12:02:52)
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, "Srivatsa, Anusha" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
> >>To: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
> >>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <[email protected]>; Srivatsa, Anusha
> >><[email protected]>; Wajdeczko, Michal
> >><[email protected]>; Greg KH <[email protected]>;
> >>[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> >>[email protected]; [email protected]; dri-
> >>[email protected]
> >>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for
> >>Geminilake
> >>
> >>On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> 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'm not going to ack and take responsibility for the stable backports
> unless someone actually comes forward with credible Tested-bys.
And even then, some distros will be surprised of the new MODULE_FIRMWARE
and will need to update the linux-firmware package, too.
Regards, Joonas
>
> 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
On 18 April 2018 at 00:14, Joonas Lahtinen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-04-17 12:02:52)
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, "Srivatsa, Anusha" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>-----Original Message-----
>> >>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:[email protected]]
>> >>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
>> >>To: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
>> >>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <[email protected]>; Srivatsa, Anusha
>> >><[email protected]>; Wajdeczko, Michal
>> >><[email protected]>; Greg KH <[email protected]>;
>> >>[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>> >>[email protected]; [email protected]; dri-
>> >>[email protected]
>> >>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for
>> >>Geminilake
<snip>
In summary so far:
Jani:
> NAK on indiscriminate Cc: stable. There are zero guarantees that
> older kernels will work with whatever firmware you throw at them.
> 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'm not going to ack and take responsibility for the stable backports
> unless someone actually comes forward with credible Tested-bys.
Anusha:
> The stable kernel version is 4.12 and beyond.
> It is appropriate to add the CC: stable in my opinion
Joonas:
> And even then, some distros will be surprised of the new MODULE_FIRMWARE
> and will need to update the linux-firmware package, too.
I've performed backport testing and some additional analysis as follows:
The DMC firmware for GLK was initially included in 4.11
(commit: dbb28b5c3d3cb945a63030fab8d3894cf335ce19).
Then the firmware version was upgraded to 1.03 in 4.12
(commit: f4a791819ed00a749a90387aa139706a507aa690).
However MODULE_FIRMWARE for the GLK DMC firmware
was also removed in 4.12
(commit: d9321a03efcda867b3a8c6327e01808516f0acd7)
together with the firmware version being bumped to 1.04
(commit: aebfd1d37194e00d4c417e7be97efeb736cd9c04).
The patch below effectively reverts commit d9321a03 because the GLK
firmware is now available in the linux-firmware repository.
To test stable backports I've used Ubuntu 18.04 (Beta 2) userspace with
both Ubuntu (generic) and self-compiled mainline (patched) kernels.
The conclusion was that the patch works across 4.12 to 4.17-rc1 kernels
additionally displaying a 'Possible missing firmware' message when
installing a kernel with the expected firmware missing.
The following are abridged backport test results:
Scenario: No DMC (glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin) firmware installed in
'/lib/firmware/i915'
Test:Kernel installation ('grep -i dmc' output from 'apt install'):
4.12-generic and 4.15-generic:
No output # as expected
4.12 to 4.17-rc1-patched:
W: Possible missing firmware
/lib/firmware/i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin for module i915
Result: The effect of the patch is to add a 'Possible missing
firmware' message.
Test: Booting ('grep -i dmc' output from 'dmesg'):
4.12-generic:
No output # as expected
4.15-generic:
i915 0000:00:02.0: Direct firmware load for
i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin failed with error -2
i915 0000:00:02.0: Failed to load DMC firmware
i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin. Disabling runtime power management.
i915 0000:00:02.0: DMC firmware homepage:
https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads/firmware
4.12-patched:
No output # as expected
4.13 to 4.14-patched:
i915 0000:00:02.0: Direct firmware load for
i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin failed with error -2
i915 0000:00:02.0: Failed to load DMC firmware
[https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads/firmware], disabling runtime
power management.
4.15 to 4.17-rc1-patched:
i915 0000:00:02.0: Direct firmware load for
i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin failed with error -2
i915 0000:00:02.0: Failed to load DMC firmware
i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin. Disabling runtime power management.
i915 0000:00:02.0: DMC firmware homepage:
https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads/firmware
Result: The effect of the patch does not change existing
(non-patched kernel) messages.
Scenario: DMC (glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin) firmware installed in '/lib/firmware/i915'
Test:Kernel installation ('grep -i dmc' output from 'apt install')
All kernels:
No messages # as expected
Result: The effect of the patch does not change existing messages.
Test" Booting ('grep -i dmc' output from 'dmesg'):
4.12-generic:
No output # as expected
4.15-generic:
i915 0000:00:02.0: Direct firmware load for
i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin failed with error -2
i915 0000:00:02.0: Failed to load DMC firmware
i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin. Disabling runtime power management.
i915 0000:00:02.0: DMC firmware homepage:
https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads/firmware
4.12-patched:
No output # as expected
4.13 to 4.17-rc1-patched:
[drm] Finished loading DMC firmware i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin (v1.4)
Result: The effect of the patch is to remove the 'Failed to load' message.
Regards,
Ian
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've performed backport testing and some additional analysis as follows:
What testing did you do beyond booting? Did you run igt?
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
On 20 April 2018 at 17:50, Jani Nikula <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've performed backport testing and some additional analysis as follows:
>
> What testing did you do beyond booting? Did you run igt?
>
> BR,
> Jani.
I did some basic testing including running a 4K video on Chrome whilst
running intel_gpu_top. The intel_gpu_top program doesn't display
anything on 4.12 either with or without the patch as neither I nor
Canonical enabled CONFIG_DRM_I915_ALPHA_SUPPORT. Do you think that the
stable tag should exclude 4.12 because of the 'alpha quality support'
and if so do you want a V2 of the patch?
Best regards,
Ian
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:02:52PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, "Srivatsa, Anusha" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
> >>To: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
> >>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <[email protected]>; Srivatsa, Anusha
> >><[email protected]>; Wajdeczko, Michal
> >><[email protected]>; Greg KH <[email protected]>;
> >>[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> >>[email protected]; [email protected]; dri-
> >>[email protected]
> >>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for
> >>Geminilake
> >>
> >>On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> 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.
> 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
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vivi, Rodrigo
>Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:04 AM
>To: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
>Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha <[email protected]>; Ian W MORRISON
><[email protected]>; [email protected]; Greg KH
><[email protected]>; [email protected]; linux-
>[email protected]; [email protected]; dri-
>[email protected]; Wajdeczko, Michal <[email protected]>
>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" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>-----Original Message-----
>> >>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:[email protected]]
>> >>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
>> >>To: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
>> >>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <[email protected]>; Srivatsa, Anusha
>> >><[email protected]>; Wajdeczko, Michal
>> >><[email protected]>; Greg KH <[email protected]>;
>> >>[email protected]; [email protected];
>> >>[email protected]; [email protected];
>> >>[email protected]; dri- [email protected]
>> >>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE
>> >>for Geminilake
>> >>
>> >>On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> 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
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
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 <[email protected]>; Jani Nikula <[email protected]>; Botello Ortega, Luis <[email protected]>; Martinez Monroy, Elio <[email protected]>
Cc: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Greg KH <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Wajdeczko, Michal <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
>Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha <[email protected]>; Ian W MORRISON
><[email protected]>; [email protected]; Greg KH
><[email protected]>; [email protected]; linux-
>[email protected]; [email protected]; dri-
>[email protected]; Wajdeczko, Michal
><[email protected]>
>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" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>-----Original Message-----
>> >>From: Jani Nikula [mailto:[email protected]]
>> >>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
>> >>To: Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]>
>> >>Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <[email protected]>; Srivatsa, Anusha
>> >><[email protected]>; Wajdeczko, Michal
>> >><[email protected]>; Greg KH <[email protected]>;
>> >>[email protected]; [email protected];
>> >>[email protected]; [email protected];
>> >>[email protected]; dri- [email protected]
>> >>Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE
>> >>for Geminilake
>> >>
>> >>On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> 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
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 21 April 2018 at 11:22, Botello Ortega, Luis
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
>
Your measured response is appreciated and raises at least four
possible alternatives for this patch to proceed:
1. It is normal that firmware is *only* tested at a certain point in
time with the drm-tip version of the mainline kernel so that the
statement 'firmware X is acceptable and healthy to be used with kernel
version Y but is not guaranteed with Y+1 or Y+n' always holds true for
any microarchitecture codename's DMC firmware. Therefore it is
appropriate for this patch to have a restricted 'Cc:
[email protected] # 4.14' tag together with an explicit
'Tested-by: (in 4.14)' tag.
2. As firmware testing was not performed on 4.15 and subsequent
versions, testing is still required on versions 4.15 through to the
current RC of version 4.17 for the patch to receive a 'Tested-by:' tag
together with a 'Cc: [email protected] # 4.14' tag.
3. Further firmware testing will only be undertaken for the current RC
of version 4.17 and on successful completion the patch will only
receive a 'Tested-by:' tag. A 'Cc: [email protected]' tag is not
applicable.
4. The firmware was not tested on 4.15 and subsequent versions as it's
functionality was provided by alternative means and therefore the
patch is only required in version 4.14 and should have a 'Cc:
[email protected] # 4.14 only' tag together with a restricted
'Tested-by: (only in 4.14)' tag.
Could you indicate which alternative is appropriate? If further
firmware testing is required (as in points 2 or 3) then can an
expected completion date be provided?
Best regards,
Ian
Hi Anusha,
Can I ask if this is on anyone's radar as I'm concerned this patch will
stall otherwise?
I see that the significance of testing with the 4.14 kernel enabled the
firmware to be included in the latest Chrome OS kernel (
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-os-reviews/jtpHvZOfZ-Q).
It is important to similarly include in the mainline and stable kernels to
facilitate various distros that are now raising bug reports (for example:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/intel/+bug/1760545).
Many thanks,
Ian
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 at 08:46, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21 April 2018 at 11:22, Botello Ortega, Luis
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> Your measured response is appreciated and raises at least four
> possible alternatives for this patch to proceed:
> 1. It is normal that firmware is *only* tested at a certain point in
> time with the drm-tip version of the mainline kernel so that the
> statement 'firmware X is acceptable and healthy to be used with kernel
> version Y but is not guaranteed with Y+1 or Y+n' always holds true for
> any microarchitecture codename's DMC firmware. Therefore it is
> appropriate for this patch to have a restricted 'Cc:
> [email protected] # 4.14' tag together with an explicit
> 'Tested-by: (in 4.14)' tag.
> 2. As firmware testing was not performed on 4.15 and subsequent
> versions, testing is still required on versions 4.15 through to the
> current RC of version 4.17 for the patch to receive a 'Tested-by:' tag
> together with a 'Cc: [email protected] # 4.14' tag.
> 3. Further firmware testing will only be undertaken for the current RC
> of version 4.17 and on successful completion the patch will only
> receive a 'Tested-by:' tag. A 'Cc: [email protected]' tag is not
> applicable.
> 4. The firmware was not tested on 4.15 and subsequent versions as it's
> functionality was provided by alternative means and therefore the
> patch is only required in version 4.14 and should have a 'Cc:
> [email protected] # 4.14 only' tag together with a restricted
> 'Tested-by: (only in 4.14)' tag.
> Could you indicate which alternative is appropriate? If further
> firmware testing is required (as in points 2 or 3) then can an
> expected completion date be provided?
> Best regards,
> Ian
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can I ask if this is on anyone's radar as I'm concerned this patch will
> stall otherwise?
Pushed to drm-intel-next-queued, thanks for the patch.
I opted to drop the Cc: stable for now. This doesn't mean it can't be
backported later on, I'm just punting on that call right now to make
some forward progress here.
Joonas, please do pick f6d3e06f0747 ("drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE
for Geminilake") to drm-intel-fixes to queue it to v4.17.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-04-27 12:20:55)
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Can I ask if this is on anyone's radar as I'm concerned this patch will
> > stall otherwise?
>
> Pushed to drm-intel-next-queued, thanks for the patch.
>
> I opted to drop the Cc: stable for now. This doesn't mean it can't be
> backported later on, I'm just punting on that call right now to make
> some forward progress here.
>
> Joonas, please do pick f6d3e06f0747 ("drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE
> for Geminilake") to drm-intel-fixes to queue it to v4.17.
Done. That's the only drm-intel-fixes patch there seems to be for -rc4.
Regards, Joonas
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center