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
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> <CAFXWsS87X_QVFSA+BqefknE4x0o=7Edfp1iqdTD81YCcoLHsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFXWsS87X_QVFSA+BqefknE4x0o=7Edfp1iqdTD81YCcoLHsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 23:15:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFXWsS8H8V3RvArLnvGF1z_TuojgBU6pDoqBccCHGV=s9DNJfA@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,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <ianwmorrison@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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