On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:31:04AM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 04:19:54PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 08:52:29PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 02:57:48PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> >We now use ilk_hpd_irq_setup for all GMCH platforms that do not have > >> >hotplug. These are early gen3 and gen2 devices that now explode on boot > >> >as they try to access non-existent registers. > >> > >> humn... true, my bad. But I don't think a revert is the right fix. It > >> would be much better if we would not be setting up the hpd setup > >> function at all for platforms that do not have hotplug. I think a > >> separate early check for I915_HAS_HOTPLUG() would be deserved. > > > >I think it generally leads to much less convoluted logic when we keep > >gmch vs. rest separate. So I'm confused as to what we're even trying > >to achieve here? > > 1) Stop trying to setup hotplug in a platform that doesn't have hotplug > was the main focus. Later it would be better to move some of these > hotplug to display/ as they are clearly display related and account for > a great portion of i915_irq.c. > > I left the I915_HAS_HOTPLUG() in the middle by > mistake, it should had been an earlier call. > > 2) semi-related is the move of GMCH to the middle and I guess this is > what you're complaining here. I find it's cumbersome to have it > separate as we go and extend these checks for newer platforms. Almost > everywhere we settled on having last platform first in the if/else > ladders - this makes it much more clear on how/where to add a new > platform. You never touch the gmch path for new platforms. What could be more clear than that? -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
