On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If there's lot of these and they get used a lot then I think the best > option might be to add some kind of phy_port_offsets[] type of thing. > Although it seems we'd need separate offsets for the group vs. > individual lane access. We have that for pipe_offsets, trans_offsets, palette_offsets, and cursor_offsets in struct intel_device_info. That's fine for some things, a bit awkward for some others. It's a bit heavy when there are just few registers following some scheme. > But for just a few registers that are not used that much and are > purely CNL specific, then I guess just using _PICK for them might be > OK. Yes, we definitely want to avoid _PICK when ((a) + (port)*((b)-(a))) or similar will do. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
