On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 05:31:45PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, David Weinehall <david.weinehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> Update VBT defs to reflect revision 216. While at it, default the
> >> expected child device struct size to sizeof the size rather than a
> >> hardcoded value.
> >>
> >> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.c | 8 +++++---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_vbt_defs.h | 2 ++
> >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.c
> >> index 51108ffc28d1..b820d595ebc8 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.c
> >> @@ -1323,11 +1323,13 @@ parse_general_definitions(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> expected_size = LEGACY_CHILD_DEVICE_CONFIG_SIZE;
> >> } else if (bdb->version == 195) {
> >> expected_size = 37;
> >> - } else if (bdb->version <= 197) {
> >> + } else if (bdb->version <= 215) {
> >> expected_size = 38;
> >> + } else if (bdb->version <= 216) {
> >> + expected_size = 39;
> >> } else {
> >> - expected_size = 38;
> >> - BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*child) < 38);
> >> + expected_size = sizeof(*child);
> >> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*child) < 39);
> >> DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Expected child device config size for VBT version %u not known; assuming %u\n",
> >> bdb->version, expected_size);
> >> }
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_vbt_defs.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_vbt_defs.h
> >> index e3d7745a9151..bbb173e116b3 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_vbt_defs.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_vbt_defs.h
> >> @@ -412,6 +412,8 @@ struct child_device_config {
> >> u16 dp_gpio_pin_num; /* 195 */
> >> u8 dp_iboost_level:4; /* 196 */
> >> u8 hdmi_iboost_level:4; /* 196 */
> >> + u8 dp_max_link_rate_reserved:6; /* 216 */
> >> + u8 dp_max_link_rate:2; /* 216 CNL+ */
> >
> > Isn't the bitorder wrong here?
>
> *facepalm*
Maybe we should add a comment specifying how we expect them
bitfields to work here. I can never remember which way they go.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
