> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> Anusha Srivatsa
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 12:42 AM
> To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Cleanup intel_phy_is_combo()
>
> No functional change. Cleanup the intel_phy_is_combo to accomodate for
> cases where combo phy is not available.
>
> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 9 +--------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> index a0f84cbe974f..b69208cf9a5e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> @@ -2082,20 +2082,13 @@ bool intel_phy_is_combo(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum phy phy) {
> if (phy == PHY_NONE)
> return false;
> - else if (IS_DG2(dev_priv))
> - /*
> - * DG2 outputs labelled as "combo PHY" in the bspec use
> - * SNPS PHYs with completely different programming,
> - * hence we always return false here.
> - */
> - return false;
I feel it would be good to retain this. This is very well commented. In future upon adding something
like DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11, like the one done below can create confusion.
> else if (IS_ALDERLAKE_S(dev_priv))
> return phy <= PHY_E;
> else if (IS_DG1(dev_priv) || IS_ROCKETLAKE(dev_priv))
> return phy <= PHY_D;
> else if (IS_JSL_EHL(dev_priv))
> return phy <= PHY_C;
> - else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
> + else if (IS_ALDERLAKE_P(dev_priv) || IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 11,
> 12))
> return phy <= PHY_B;
> else
> return false;
> --
> 2.25.1
Thanks and Regards,
Arun R Murthy
--------------------
