On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:06:47AM -0800, Srivatsa, Anusha wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Tvrtko Ursulin [mailto:tvrtko.ursu...@linux.intel.com] > >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:31 AM > >To: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.sriva...@intel.com>; Mcgee, Jeff > ><jeff.mc...@intel.com> > >Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>; > >intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; > >Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.v...@intel.com> > >Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/GuC: Combine the two kernel > >parameter into one > > > > > >On 14/11/2016 17:34, Srivatsa, Anusha wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >>> One idea could be to hide the guc loading form the user altogether > >>> and hence improve usability (decrease exposed complexity) by having > >>> only two parameters; i915.enable_guc_scheduling and i915.enable_huc. > >> That's a good point. But with this we will have two parameters (which > >> kills the > >point of why the patch was written in the first place), then we can rather > >leave it > >the way it is. Right? > > > >For some reason I thought the HuC patch series add a another module > >parameter. > > > >What is the failure mode for HuC is GuC firmware loading is disabled btw? > > > Hi Tvrtko, in the function intel_guc_auth_huc() there is a check to see if > GuC is loaded or not. If GuC loading has failed or loading is disabled, then > HuC authentication does not happen. > Yes, GuC must authenticate HuC firmware.
I am in favor of Tvrtko's suggestion for dropping i915.enable_guc_loading, keeping i915.enable_guc_submission, and adding i915.enable_huc. If either of the last two are enabled, GuC loading is implied. So kernel parameters are tied to enabling specific functionality. I think the specific parameter for loading is legacy from the first hurdle for GuC long ago. I assume we are not bound by ABI to keep that around if it is no longer needed, yes? The other thing I would want to reconsider is the "casual" enable vs. "force" enable options. Does anyone remember why these 2 levels of enable have been used. Maybe this is also a legacy. Can we just do a auto (-1), disable (0), and enable (1)? _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
