See comment in cover letter:On Thu, 2023-04-06 at 15:26 -0700, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> Fix Xe_LP name. Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>alan:snip-/* GEN9/XE_LPD - Render / Compute Per-Engine-Instance */ +/* GEN8+ Render / Compute Per-Engine-Instance */alan: two comments on this: 1. shouldnt this go with the earlier patch?
NB: The changes are being sent as multiple patches to make code review simpler. However, before merging it may be better to squash into a single patch, especially if it going to be sent with a 'fixes' tag.
Because at some point we might want to start supporting other platforms. My view is that the comment should be accurate. These registers exist on Gen8+. So if you are building a register list for a Gen8 or later device, they can/should be included.2. i agree with renaming the names of the register to reflect the when all of those registers got first introduced... however, considering we only support GuC on Gen12 and beyond (we do have select CI-tests that enable GuC on Gen9 but not on Gen8 and before), should we also change the comments? I think the comment should reflect the usage not just follow the same name of the registe #define - else why even add the comments. (please apply this same comment for gen8_vd_inst_regs, gen8_vec_inst_regs and gen8_blt_inst_regs). alternatively, we could keep those GEN8+ comments above the list but maybe add just one comment in the default list - see below.
It wasn't me that named it 'default_' rather than gen9_. I could add yet another rename of s/default_/gen9_/g...alan: snip@@ -366,7 +364,7 @@ guc_capture_get_device_reglist(struct intel_guc *guc) const struct __guc_mmio_reg_descr_group *lists; if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= 12) - lists = xe_lpd_lists; + lists = xe_lp_lists; else lists = default_lists;alan: perhaps add a comment that we really don't support any of this on anything below Gen9?
John.
