On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 02:05:00PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 09:38:05PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Since tgl PIPE_DSL has 20 bits for the scanline. Let's bump our > > definition to match. And while at it let's also add the define > > for the current field readback. > > > > We can also get rid of the gen2 vs. gen3+ nonsense since none > > of the extra bits ever did anything and just always read > > as zero. > > You are stepping over reserved bits on older platforms here. > > I understand that must probably hw is not using this for anything > and the reads are only zero. But I'm always afraid of opening > precedence for this kind of assumptions and end up stepping > over some reserved bit that hw is using for something else > but not documented. We do this in other places too in order to keep the code simple. I think it's fine for cases where all old platforms had a smaller bitfield which is extended in later platforms. That is, assuming all the bits were unused (and read as zero) in the old platforms, which is the case here. The thing we probably shouldn't do is make the bitfield larger proactively for future platforms since we can't know if some of the currently unused bits might end up being used for something else in the future. I really hope we don't have any undocumented bits anywhere since those can screw us up in a lot more ways than this. If we do find any undocuemnted bits we really need to file bspec issues for those. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
