On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, "Zhang, Xiong Y" <xiong.y.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:02:47PM +0800, Xiong Zhang wrote: >> I'm not 100% sure the ULT/ULX <=> LP thing always holds. I *think* it >> should but I've never been able to convince myself totally. > [Zhang, Xiong Y] For BDW ULT/ULX, it should be LP. A picture from https://gfxspecs.intel.com/Predator/Home/Index/4216 could confirm this. While that picture confirms ULT/ULX uses LP PCH, it also confirms there's a non-ULT/ULX BDW with LP PCH, and on that the patch chooses the wrong PCH type. > For HSW ULT/ULX, I couldn't find a material to confirm this. > Anyway I copy this condition from the WARN_ON() in intel_detect_pch() The conditions in intel_detect_pch() are quite different, as it has actually detected the PCH, and the warnings are just about unexpected (and potentially unsupported) pairs of physical hardware. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
