Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F53FA74E706C9843B0288AE81EB4F4A35152EC4E@fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20180411044213.383-1-ianwmorrison@gmail.com> <871sfmhz88.fsf@intel.com>
 <CAFXWsS_SvkLvJcibx9LoUw+onN-AAzSLMrRgx3U3hsbMVyty2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <87lgdugc85.fsf@intel.com> <83F5C7385F545743AD4FB2A62F75B073338FD128@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <87r2nefbnn.fsf@intel.com> <20180420180331.GE3304@intel.com>
 <83F5C7385F545743AD4FB2A62F75B0733390B83D@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> <F53FA74E706C9843B0288AE81EB4F4A35152EC4E@fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com>
From:   Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 22 Apr 2018 08:46:08 +1000
Message-ID: <CAFXWsS87X_QVFSA+BqefknE4x0o=7Edfp1iqdTD81YCcoLHsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for Geminilake
To:     "Botello Ortega, Luis" <luis.botello.ortega@intel.com>
Cc:     "Srivatsa, Anusha" <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com>,
        "Vivi, Rodrigo" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        "Martinez Monroy, Elio" <elio.martinez.monroy@intel.com>,
        "Vega, Ricardo" <ricardo.vega@intel.com>,
        "airlied@linux.ie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "Wajdeczko, Michal" <Michal.Wajdeczko@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 21 April 2018 at 11:22, Botello Ortega, Luis
<luis.botello.ortega@intel.com> 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:
stable@vger.kernel.org # 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: stable@vger.kernel.org # 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: stable@vger.kernel.org' 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:
stable@vger.kernel.org # 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