Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2020-01-22 23:52:33)
> 
> 
> On 1/22/20 11:48 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> >  From commit 84b1ca2f0e68 ("drm/i915/uc: prefer intel_gt over i915
> > in GuC/HuC paths") we stopped using HUC_STATUS error -ENODEV only
> > to indicate lack of HuC hardware and we started to use this error
> > also for all other cases when HuC was not in use or supported.
> > 
> > Fix that by relying again on HAS_GT_UC macro, since currently
> > used function intel_huc_is_supported() is based on HuC firmware
> > support which could be unsupported also due to force disabled
> > GuC firmware.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospu...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Tony Ye <tony...@intel.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospu...@intel.com>

Once upon a time did you (Michal) not argue we should indicate the lack
of firmware in the error code? Something like

if (!HAS_GT_UC(gt->i915))
        return -ENODEV;

if (!intel_huc_is_supported(huc))
        return -ENOEXEC;
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to