On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 09:36:40PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 22 May 2024, Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Jani Nikula (2024-05-22 14:33:37-03:00) > >>Add independent platform probe in display, in preparation for breaking > >>free from i915 and xe code. > >> > >>Up next would be adding separate IS_<PLATFORM>() style macros to > >>display. Not included here, because I couldn't come up with nice names > >>yet. IS_DISPLAY_<PLATFORM>() is a bit verbose. > > > > Drive-by comment: At least for recent hardware, we can use > > display-specific release names, e.g. IS_XE2LPD() for LNL's display, > > since theoretically that display IP could be reused in a different > > platform. > > I think we should prefer the IP version checks over adding names like > xe2lpd which IMO are hard to remember and associate with platforms or IP > versions. yeap, but perhaps we will need something like that anyway, because the mix and match from different platforms using same IP block or even the possibility of the same platform but different skus using different IP blocks. :/ > > And we'll still need the platform checks for a plethora of old > platforms. What about DISP_<PLATFORM> ? or <PLATFORM>_DISP ? or even DISPLAY_<PLATFORM> or <PLATFORM>_DISPLAY, but definitely getting rid of the extra 'IS'... > > > BR, > Jani. > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel
