Quoting dong.yang@xxxxxxxxx (2019-08-14 10:54:05)
> From: "Yang, Dong" <dong.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Broxton steppings starting from GT E0 have fixed the bug, remove
> WA since stepping GT E0.
>
> v2: add comment in code, by:
> Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I didn't suggest any comments, I suggested to change the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang, Dong <dong.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 5f3e5c13fbaa..a0dfd1926b1b 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_E0 0xD
>
> #define IS_BXT_REVID(dev_priv, since, until) \
> (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv) && IS_REVID(dev_priv, since, until))
> @@ -2357,7 +2359,8 @@ 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();
> + /* Broxton steppings starting from E0 have fixed the bug. */
This comment is not needed.
I suggested using BXT_REVID_D_LAST define instead of D0.
Regards, Joonas
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
