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
-----Original Message----- From: Srivatsa, Anusha Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 1:30 PM To: Vivi, Rodrigo rodrigo.vivi@intel.com; Jani Nikula jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; Botello Ortega, Luis luis.botello.ortega@intel.com; Martinez Monroy, Elio elio.martinez.monroy@intel.com Cc: Ian W MORRISON ianwmorrison@gmail.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 Subject: RE: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for Geminilake
-----Original Message----- From: Vivi, Rodrigo Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:04 AM To: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@linux.intel.com Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha anusha.srivatsa@intel.com; Ian W MORRISON ianwmorrison@gmail.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 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" anusha.srivatsa@intel.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Jani Nikula [mailto:jani.nikula@linux.intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM To: Ian W MORRISON ianwmorrison@gmail.com Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo rodrigo.vivi@intel.com; Srivatsa, Anusha anusha.srivatsa@intel.com; Wajdeczko, Michal Michal.Wajdeczko@intel.com; Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; airlied@linux.ie; joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; stable@vger.kernel.org; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri- devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/glk: Add MODULE_FIRMWARE for Geminilake
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ian W MORRISON ianwmorrison@gmail.com 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 dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel