On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 02:20:09PM -0300, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 18:39, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>wrote: > > > ValleyView handles force wake differently than previous chipsets, so add > > a couple of new functions for it. But leave it disabled by default > > until we test it (need a chip with the Punit enabled first). > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> > > --- > > #define NEEDS_FORCE_WAKE(dev_priv, reg) \ > > (((dev_priv)->info->gen >= 6) && \ > > ((reg) < 0x40000) && \ > > - ((reg) != FORCEWAKE)) > > + ((reg) != FORCEWAKE)) && \ > > + (!IS_VALLEYVIEW((dev_priv)->dev)) > > > > In the spirit of bikeshedding, I think that NEEDS_FORCE_WAKE is becoming a > bit scary this way. But I don't know if it makes sense to move the gen and > dev check into a feature flag, to avoid similar issues with possible future > generations of chips.. Agreed. I think the better approach is to check if the fwake function pointers are !NULL also (since it will apply to other chipsets potentially as well). > > -- > Eugeni Dodonov > <http://eugeni.dodonov.net/> > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
