comments updated, please review again. -----Original Message----- From: Joonas Lahtinen [mailto:joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 8:47 PM To: Yang, Dong <dong.yang@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Remove i915 ggtt WA since GT E Quoting Dong Yang (2019-08-12 05:36:16) > From: "Yang, Dong" <dong.yang@xxxxxxxxx> > > The APL already fixed this bug since GT E, bug exist from > 0 to D, apply WA according GT stepping. "Broxton steppings starting from E0 have fixed the bug." > Signed-off-by: Yang, Dong <dong.yang@xxxxxxxxx> You probably want to use "" here too. Or just swap order. > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h index 5f3e5c13fbaa..ee384c28174a > 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > @@ -2141,6 +2141,8 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private *i915, > #define BXT_REVID_B0 0x3 > #define BXT_REVID_B_LAST 0x8 > #define BXT_REVID_C0 0x9 > +#define BXT_REVID_D0 0xC #define BXT_REVID_D_LAST 0xC > +#define BXT_REVID_E0 0xD > > #define IS_BXT_REVID(dev_priv, since, until) \ > (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv) && IS_REVID(dev_priv, since, until)) @@ > -2357,7 +2359,7 @@ static inline bool > intel_scanout_needs_vtd_wa(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) static > inline bool intel_ggtt_update_needs_vtd_wa(struct drm_i915_private > *dev_priv) { > - return IS_BROXTON(dev_priv) && intel_vtd_active(); > + return return IS_BXT_REVID(dev_priv, 0, BXT_REVID_D0) && > + intel_vtd_active(); return IS_BXT_REVID(dev_priv, 0, BXT_REVID_D_LAST) && intel_vtd_active(); Regards, Joonas _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
