I'm not sure that kbl has this either. The kbl machine I've been
working with thus-far has passed a few modesetting stress tests with
the chameleon, and I don't have anything trying to control sagv stuff
on it.
This being said though the sagv for skylake did happen to get added
right before release and wasn't in any SDPs, so even so we should keep
our eyes out when kbl starts shipping…
On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 19:11 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:52:14PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >
> > According to BSpec, it's the "core CPUs" that need the code, which
> > means SKL and KBL, but not BXT.
> >
> > I don't have a KBL to test this patch on it.
>
> IIRC bspec doesn't specify the sagv latency for anything but
> SKL, and the relevant w/a was only listed for SKL as well. So not
> sure
> this is correct.
>
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > index af75011..baacd95 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > @@ -2887,7 +2887,7 @@ skl_wm_plane_id(const struct intel_plane
> > *plane)
> > static bool
> > intel_has_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > {
> > - return IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv);
> > + return IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_KABYLAKE(dev_priv);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
--
Cheers,
Lyude
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
