Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-08-02 Thread Dave Gordon 

On 01/08/16 19:57, Dave Gordon wrote:

On 01/08/16 14:54, Jani Nikula wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Dave Gordon  wrote:

The existing code that accesses the "enable_guc_submission"
parameter uses explicit numerical values for the various
possibilities, including in one case relying on boolean 0/1
mapping to specific values (which could be confusing for
maintainers).

So this patch just provides and uses names for the values
representing the DEFAULT, DISABLED, PREFERRED, and MANDATORY
submission options that the user can select (-1, 0, 1, 2
respectively).

This should produce identical code to the previous version!

Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon 
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin 
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c |  2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h   |  6 ++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c| 15 ---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c   |  6 +++---
 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
index 01c1c16..e564c976 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
@@ -971,7 +971,7 @@ int i915_guc_submission_init(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 bitmap_clear(guc->doorbell_bitmap, 0, GUC_MAX_DOORBELLS);
 i915_guc_submission_disable(dev_priv);

-if (!i915.enable_guc_submission)
+if (i915.enable_guc_submission == GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED)
 return 0; /* not enabled  */

 if (guc->ctx_pool_obj)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
index 3e3e743..52ecbba 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
@@ -90,6 +90,12 @@ struct i915_guc_client {
 uint64_t submissions[I915_NUM_ENGINES];
 };

+enum {
+GUC_SUBMISSION_DEFAULT = -1,
+GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED = 0,
+GUC_SUBMISSION_PREFERRED,
+GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY
+};
 enum intel_guc_fw_status {
 GUC_FIRMWARE_FAIL = -1,
 GUC_FIRMWARE_NONE = 0,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
index b883efd..d8bd4cb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static void set_guc_init_params(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 }

 /* If GuC submission is enabled, set up additional parameters
here */
-if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
 u32 pgs = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset(dev_priv->guc.ctx_pool_obj);
 u32 ctx_in_16 = GUC_MAX_GPU_CONTEXTS / 16;

@@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
 intel_guc_fw_status_repr(guc_fw->guc_fw_fetch_status),
 intel_guc_fw_status_repr(guc_fw->guc_fw_load_status));

-if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
 err = i915_guc_submission_enable(dev_priv);
 if (err)
 goto fail;
@@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
  */
 if (i915.enable_guc_loading > 1) {
 ret = -EIO;
-} else if (i915.enable_guc_submission > 1) {
+} else if (i915.enable_guc_submission >=
GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY) {


I like the patches in general, but now these >= and <= seem rather out
of place. How about using == and != exclusively?

BR,
Jani.


That would leave us with undefined behaviour for values outside the
recognised range. This way it clips out-of-range values to the nearest
extremum. Of course we could make it fail completely for invalid values,
but that's just really annoying for the developer or admin who's
mistyped -1 as -2 or forgotten what the maximum supported value is in
this release. Alternatively we could convert all out-of-range values to
"system default" i.e. ignored, which might still be annoying but not
quite as much.

Any other suggestions for how to handle out-of-range values?

But if we were changing the policy shouldn't that be a separate patch?
This patch is supposed to change only the way the code is written, with
no effect to existing behaviour!

.Dave.


Also, if you look ahead to the next patch, you'll see there's a big 
explanatory comment about the use of signed and ordered enums:


+/*
+ * These signed ranges represent user-requested preferences.
+ * Out-of-range values from the user will be clipped towards
+ * zero: any negative value is treated as -1, anything over 2
+ * is just 2. ANY user-supplied value also taints the kernel.
+ */
 enum {
GUC_SUBMISSION_DEFAULT = -1,
GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED = 0,
GUC_SUBMISSION_PREFERRED,
GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY
 };
+enum {
+   FIRMWARE_LOAD_DEFAULT = -1,
+   FIRMWARE_LOAD_DISABLED = 0,
+   FIRMWARE_LOAD_PREFERRED,
+   FIRMWARE_LOAD_MANDATORY
+};
+
+/*

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-08-02 Thread Jani Nikula 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016, Dave Gordon  wrote:
> On 01/08/16 14:54, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Dave Gordon  wrote:
>>> -   } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission > 1) {
>>> +   } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission >= GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY) {
>>
>> I like the patches in general, but now these >= and <= seem rather out
>> of place. How about using == and != exclusively?
>>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>
> That would leave us with undefined behaviour for values outside the 
> recognised range. This way it clips out-of-range values to the nearest 
> extremum. Of course we could make it fail completely for invalid values, 
> but that's just really annoying for the developer or admin who's 
> mistyped -1 as -2 or forgotten what the maximum supported value is in 
> this release. Alternatively we could convert all out-of-range values to 
> "system default" i.e. ignored, which might still be annoying but not 
> quite as much.

I'm not a huge fan of making assumptions about what the user possibly
meant when giving incorrect input, "as a convenience". It teaches the
user to be sloppy about it, and might lead to super annoying surprises
when we actually start using those values for something else.

> Any other suggestions for how to handle out-of-range values?
>
> But if we were changing the policy shouldn't that be a separate patch? 
> This patch is supposed to change only the way the code is written, with 
> no effect to existing behaviour!

Oh, completely agreed here, while I didn't spell this out in my first
reply. This shouldn't block the patch.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-08-01 Thread Dave Gordon 

On 01/08/16 14:54, Jani Nikula wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Dave Gordon  wrote:

The existing code that accesses the "enable_guc_submission"
parameter uses explicit numerical values for the various
possibilities, including in one case relying on boolean 0/1
mapping to specific values (which could be confusing for
maintainers).

So this patch just provides and uses names for the values
representing the DEFAULT, DISABLED, PREFERRED, and MANDATORY
submission options that the user can select (-1, 0, 1, 2
respectively).

This should produce identical code to the previous version!

Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon 
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin 
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c |  2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h   |  6 ++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c| 15 ---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c   |  6 +++---
 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
index 01c1c16..e564c976 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
@@ -971,7 +971,7 @@ int i915_guc_submission_init(struct drm_i915_private 
*dev_priv)
bitmap_clear(guc->doorbell_bitmap, 0, GUC_MAX_DOORBELLS);
i915_guc_submission_disable(dev_priv);

-   if (!i915.enable_guc_submission)
+   if (i915.enable_guc_submission == GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED)
return 0; /* not enabled  */

if (guc->ctx_pool_obj)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
index 3e3e743..52ecbba 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
@@ -90,6 +90,12 @@ struct i915_guc_client {
uint64_t submissions[I915_NUM_ENGINES];
 };

+enum {
+   GUC_SUBMISSION_DEFAULT = -1,
+   GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED = 0,
+   GUC_SUBMISSION_PREFERRED,
+   GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY
+};
 enum intel_guc_fw_status {
GUC_FIRMWARE_FAIL = -1,
GUC_FIRMWARE_NONE = 0,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
index b883efd..d8bd4cb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static void set_guc_init_params(struct drm_i915_private 
*dev_priv)
}

/* If GuC submission is enabled, set up additional parameters here */
-   if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+   if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
u32 pgs = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset(dev_priv->guc.ctx_pool_obj);
u32 ctx_in_16 = GUC_MAX_GPU_CONTEXTS / 16;

@@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
intel_guc_fw_status_repr(guc_fw->guc_fw_fetch_status),
intel_guc_fw_status_repr(guc_fw->guc_fw_load_status));

-   if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+   if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
err = i915_guc_submission_enable(dev_priv);
if (err)
goto fail;
@@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
 */
if (i915.enable_guc_loading > 1) {
ret = -EIO;
-   } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission > 1) {
+   } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission >= GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY) {


I like the patches in general, but now these >= and <= seem rather out
of place. How about using == and != exclusively?

BR,
Jani.


That would leave us with undefined behaviour for values outside the 
recognised range. This way it clips out-of-range values to the nearest 
extremum. Of course we could make it fail completely for invalid values, 
but that's just really annoying for the developer or admin who's 
mistyped -1 as -2 or forgotten what the maximum supported value is in 
this release. Alternatively we could convert all out-of-range values to 
"system default" i.e. ignored, which might still be annoying but not 
quite as much.


Any other suggestions for how to handle out-of-range values?

But if we were changing the policy shouldn't that be a separate patch? 
This patch is supposed to change only the way the code is written, with 
no effect to existing behaviour!


.Dave.


ret = -EIO;
} else {
ret = 0;
@@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
else
DRM_ERROR("GuC firmware load failed: %d\n", err);

-   if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+   if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
if (fw_path == NULL)
DRM_INFO("GuC submission without firmware not 
supported\n");
if (ret == 0)
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
else

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-08-01 Thread Jani Nikula 
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Dave Gordon  wrote:
> The existing code that accesses the "enable_guc_submission"
> parameter uses explicit numerical values for the various
> possibilities, including in one case relying on boolean 0/1
> mapping to specific values (which could be confusing for
> maintainers).
>
> So this patch just provides and uses names for the values
> representing the DEFAULT, DISABLED, PREFERRED, and MANDATORY
> submission options that the user can select (-1, 0, 1, 2
> respectively).
>
> This should produce identical code to the previous version!
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon 
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin 
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c |  2 +-
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h   |  6 ++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c| 15 ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c   |  6 +++---
>  4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
> index 01c1c16..e564c976 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
> @@ -971,7 +971,7 @@ int i915_guc_submission_init(struct drm_i915_private 
> *dev_priv)
>   bitmap_clear(guc->doorbell_bitmap, 0, GUC_MAX_DOORBELLS);
>   i915_guc_submission_disable(dev_priv);
>  
> - if (!i915.enable_guc_submission)
> + if (i915.enable_guc_submission == GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED)
>   return 0; /* not enabled  */
>  
>   if (guc->ctx_pool_obj)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
> index 3e3e743..52ecbba 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
> @@ -90,6 +90,12 @@ struct i915_guc_client {
>   uint64_t submissions[I915_NUM_ENGINES];
>  };
>  
> +enum {
> + GUC_SUBMISSION_DEFAULT = -1,
> + GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED = 0,
> + GUC_SUBMISSION_PREFERRED,
> + GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY
> +};
>  enum intel_guc_fw_status {
>   GUC_FIRMWARE_FAIL = -1,
>   GUC_FIRMWARE_NONE = 0,
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
> index b883efd..d8bd4cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static void set_guc_init_params(struct drm_i915_private 
> *dev_priv)
>   }
>  
>   /* If GuC submission is enabled, set up additional parameters here */
> - if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
> + if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
>   u32 pgs = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset(dev_priv->guc.ctx_pool_obj);
>   u32 ctx_in_16 = GUC_MAX_GPU_CONTEXTS / 16;
>  
> @@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
>   intel_guc_fw_status_repr(guc_fw->guc_fw_fetch_status),
>   intel_guc_fw_status_repr(guc_fw->guc_fw_load_status));
>  
> - if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
> + if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
>   err = i915_guc_submission_enable(dev_priv);
>   if (err)
>   goto fail;
> @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
>*/
>   if (i915.enable_guc_loading > 1) {
>   ret = -EIO;
> - } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission > 1) {
> + } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission >= GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY) {

I like the patches in general, but now these >= and <= seem rather out
of place. How about using == and != exclusively?

BR,
Jani.

>   ret = -EIO;
>   } else {
>   ret = 0;
> @@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
>   else
>   DRM_ERROR("GuC firmware load failed: %d\n", err);
>  
> - if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
> + if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
>   if (fw_path == NULL)
>   DRM_INFO("GuC submission without firmware not 
> supported\n");
>   if (ret == 0)
> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
>   else
>   DRM_ERROR("GuC init failed: %d\n", ret);
>   }
> - i915.enable_guc_submission = 0;
> + i915.enable_guc_submission = GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED;
>  
>   return ret;
>  }
> @@ -690,8 +690,9 @@ void intel_guc_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>   /* A negative value means "use platform default" */
>   if (i915.enable_guc_loading < 0)
>   i915.enable_guc_loading = HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev);
> - if (i915.enable_guc_submission < 0)
> - i915.enable_guc_submission = HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev);
> + if (i915.enable_guc_submission <= GUC_SUBMISSION_DEFAULT)
> + i915.enable_guc_submission = HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev) ?
> +

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-07-22 Thread Dave Gordon 
The existing code that accesses the "enable_guc_submission"
parameter uses explicit numerical values for the various
possibilities, including in one case relying on boolean 0/1
mapping to specific values (which could be confusing for
maintainers).

So this patch just provides and uses names for the values
representing the DEFAULT, DISABLED, PREFERRED, and MANDATORY
submission options that the user can select (-1, 0, 1, 2
respectively).

This should produce identical code to the previous version!

Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon 
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin 
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c |  2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h   |  6 ++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c| 15 ---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c   |  6 +++---
 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
index 01c1c16..e564c976 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
@@ -971,7 +971,7 @@ int i915_guc_submission_init(struct drm_i915_private 
*dev_priv)
bitmap_clear(guc->doorbell_bitmap, 0, GUC_MAX_DOORBELLS);
i915_guc_submission_disable(dev_priv);
 
-   if (!i915.enable_guc_submission)
+   if (i915.enable_guc_submission == GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED)
return 0; /* not enabled  */
 
if (guc->ctx_pool_obj)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
index 3e3e743..52ecbba 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
@@ -90,6 +90,12 @@ struct i915_guc_client {
uint64_t submissions[I915_NUM_ENGINES];
 };
 
+enum {
+   GUC_SUBMISSION_DEFAULT = -1,
+   GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED = 0,
+   GUC_SUBMISSION_PREFERRED,
+   GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY
+};
 enum intel_guc_fw_status {
GUC_FIRMWARE_FAIL = -1,
GUC_FIRMWARE_NONE = 0,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
index b883efd..d8bd4cb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static void set_guc_init_params(struct drm_i915_private 
*dev_priv)
}
 
/* If GuC submission is enabled, set up additional parameters here */
-   if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+   if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
u32 pgs = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset(dev_priv->guc.ctx_pool_obj);
u32 ctx_in_16 = GUC_MAX_GPU_CONTEXTS / 16;
 
@@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
intel_guc_fw_status_repr(guc_fw->guc_fw_fetch_status),
intel_guc_fw_status_repr(guc_fw->guc_fw_load_status));
 
-   if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+   if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
err = i915_guc_submission_enable(dev_priv);
if (err)
goto fail;
@@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
 */
if (i915.enable_guc_loading > 1) {
ret = -EIO;
-   } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission > 1) {
+   } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission >= GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY) {
ret = -EIO;
} else {
ret = 0;
@@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
else
DRM_ERROR("GuC firmware load failed: %d\n", err);
 
-   if (i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+   if (i915.enable_guc_submission != GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED) {
if (fw_path == NULL)
DRM_INFO("GuC submission without firmware not 
supported\n");
if (ret == 0)
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
else
DRM_ERROR("GuC init failed: %d\n", ret);
}
-   i915.enable_guc_submission = 0;
+   i915.enable_guc_submission = GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED;
 
return ret;
 }
@@ -690,8 +690,9 @@ void intel_guc_init(struct drm_device *dev)
/* A negative value means "use platform default" */
if (i915.enable_guc_loading < 0)
i915.enable_guc_loading = HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev);
-   if (i915.enable_guc_submission < 0)
-   i915.enable_guc_submission = HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev);
+   if (i915.enable_guc_submission <= GUC_SUBMISSION_DEFAULT)
+   i915.enable_guc_submission = HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev) ?
+   GUC_SUBMISSION_PREFERRED : GUC_SUBMISSION_DISABLED;
 
if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev)) {
fw_path = NULL;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
index daf1279..960e676 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
@@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ int