>-----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
