On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:05:33PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Rename PIPECONF to TRANSCONF to make it clear what it actually >> > applies to. >> > >> > While the usual convention is to pick the earliers name I think >> > in this case it's more clear to use the later name. Especially >> > as even the register offset is in the wrong range (0x70000 vs. >> > 0x60000) and thus makes it look like this is per-pipe. >> > >> > There is one place in gvt that's doing something with TRANSCONF >> > while iterating with for_each_pipe(). So that might not be doing >> > the right thing for TRANSCODER_EDP, dunno. Not knowing what it >> > does I left it as is to avoid breakage. >> >> I recently looked at _PIPE_EDP usage, and thought all of it looked a bit >> suspect, but didn't bother to dig deeper. Maybe after this it could be >> removed? > > I think it needs to stay due to the pipe_offsets[] stuff > and hw making a mess of pipe vs. transcoder registers. > But no one should really use it anywhere else. I wonder how many underscores more we need to add to keep it that way. :p -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
