On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:52:46PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > 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 People are probably accustomed to one or two. So maybe three? Could also try adding a comment, but dunno if it would any more effective. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
