On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 01:47:09PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 01:11:58PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
Three main ideas here:
- vlv sideband only has the name "sideband" in common with the rest of
intel_sideband.[ch]
I wouldn't put it like that. There are two actual sideband
implementtions in that file:
- vlv/chv iosf sideband (vlv_sideband)
- lpt/wpt iosf sideband (intel_sbi)
And the third thing in that file is the snb+ pcode mailbox stuff,
which has nothing to do with sideband.
Fair enough... but no opposition to the splitting out of vlv/chv iosf
sideband? vlv_sideband.[ch] like here? I'm fine with renaming too.
I can follow up with lpt/wpt iosf split out (intel_sbi.[ch]?) and snb+
pcode (intel_pcode.[ch]?).
yeah, I think that if we move intel_pcode.[ch] out, then we probably
don't even have to worry about the iosf_* calls for other archs. The
common stuff would be in pcode and the others would be compiled out for
archs that don't have it (i.e. only x86 adds it).
+Siva, who was looking into this iosf abstraction.
Lucas De Marchi
I think we've just put all of them together way back when this was all
probably bundled in i915_drv.c or something...
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
