On 31/05/17 10:17 PM, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote: >> On 31/05/17 07:31 AM, Li, Samuel wrote: >>> From: Michel Dänzer [mailto:michel at daenzer.net] >>>> On 30/05/17 06:16 AM, Samuel Li wrote: >>>> >>>>> +67FF, CF, 67FF:CF >>>>> +67FF, EF, 67FF:EF >>>> >>>> There should be no such dummy entries in the file. If it's useful, >>>> amdgpu_get_marketing_name can return a dummy string based on the PCI ID >>>> and revision when there's no matching entry in the file. >>> >>> [Sam] I forwarded another thread to you. >> >> Please make your argument explicitly, for the benefit of non-AMD readers >> of the amd-gfx list. >> >> Anyway, I don't think that invalidates what I wrote, and Alex seems to >> agree. "67FF:CF" isn't a marketing name, so there should be no such >> entries in this file. It's not necessary anyway; assuming it's useful >> for amdgpu_get_marketing_name to return such "names", it can generate >> them on the fly when there is no matching entry in the file. >> >> Ideally the issues above should be fixed in the original file we get >> from marketing (?), but meanwhile / failing that we should fix them up >> (and can easily with Git). > > Thinking about this more, it probably doesn't matter that much. By > the time any of these cards with no marketing names get onto shelves, > the names will be filled in. That said, it does seem strange to have > these dummy entries. Right, by the time a product is released, we should have the final marketing name and can just add that directly. I really don't see the point of adding such dummy entries before that in the libdrm repository. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
