> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 4:48 PM
> To: Bhadane, Dnyaneshwar <dnyaneshwar.bhadane@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-
> gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Bhadane, Dnyaneshwar <dnyaneshwar.bhadane@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] drm/i915/display: Add MTL subplatforms definition
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024, Dnyaneshwar Bhadane
> <dnyaneshwar.bhadane@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Separate MTL-U platform PCI ids in one define macro.
> >
> > Add the MTL U/ARL U as subplatform member in MTL platform description
> > structure to use display.platform.<platform> from intel_display
> > structure instead of IS_<PLATFORM>() in display code path.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dnyaneshwar Bhadane <dnyaneshwar.bhadane@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++
> > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.h | 2 ++
> > include/drm/intel/pciids.h | 5 ++++-
> > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c
> > index 68cb7f9b9ef3..5dc689a8b1ae 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c
> > @@ -1357,6 +1357,16 @@ static const struct intel_display_device_info
> xe2_hpd_display = {
> > BIT(PORT_TC1) | BIT(PORT_TC2) | BIT(PORT_TC3) |
> BIT(PORT_TC4), };
> >
> > +static const u16 arl_u_ids[] = {
> > + INTEL_ARL_U_IDS(ID),
> > + 0
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const u16 mtl_u_ids[] = {
> > + INTEL_MTL_U_IDS(ID),
> > + 0
> > +};
>
> We don't have arrowlake platform definition. They're all just meteorlakes. Do
> you actually need the mtl-u/arl-u distinction, or do you just need mtl+arl vs.
> mtl-u+arl-u distinction?
Hi Jani,
#1 No, don't need arl-u/mtl-u distinction then can be one-unit mtl-u+arl-u vs mtl+arl.
I was trying to make readability on conditions to match with specs description.
>
> I.e. could we just have
>
> static const u16 mtl_u_ids[] = {
> INTEL_MTL_U_IDS(ID),
> INTEL_ARL_U_IDS(ID),
> 0
> };
>
> And call them all mtl-u?
#2
Thank you, this suggestion looking good.
For now, we don't need the arrowlake-u as separate and can be club with meteorlake-u.
I will follow this approach in next revision.
but in future if we separate out arrowlake-u, then we should be careful to replace (arrowlake-u || meteorlake-u)
wherever needed.
>
> > +
> > /*
> > * Do not initialize the .info member of the platform desc for GMD ID based
> > * platforms. Their display will be probed automatically based on the
> > IP version @@ -1364,6 +1374,17 @@ static const struct
> intel_display_device_info xe2_hpd_display = {
> > */
> > static const struct platform_desc mtl_desc = {
> > PLATFORM(meteorlake),
> > + .subplatforms = (const struct subplatform_desc[]) {
> > + {
> > + SUBPLATFORM(meteorlake, u),
> > + .pciidlist = mtl_u_ids,
> > + },
> > + {
> > + SUBPLATFORM(arrowlake, u),
> > + .pciidlist = arl_u_ids,
>
> You're defining subplatfroms for meteorlake. All the platform parameters for
> SUBPLATFORM() *must* match the PLATFORM() above.
>
> > + },
> > + {},
> > + }
> > };
> >
> > static const struct platform_desc lnl_desc = { diff --git
> > a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.h
> > index 9a333d9e6601..87a614e2dfab 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.h
> > @@ -96,6 +96,8 @@ struct pci_dev;
> > func(dg2_g12) \
> > /* Display ver 14 (based on GMD ID) */ \
> > func(meteorlake) \
> > + func(meteorlake_u) \
> > + func(arrowlake_u) \
>
> The naming needs to be <platform>_<subplatform>. We don't have arrowlake
> platform, so we can't have arrowlake_u.
>
> Either we can just put all mtl+arl u's together in meteorlake_u, or we define
> arl-u as meteorlake_arrowlake_u with meteorlake being the platform and
> arrowlake_u the subplatform.
This is good note to take for future,
If they are very specific need of identifying arrowlake-u we should use this approach.
For now, removing arrowlake_u and combining with meteorlake u subplatform as per comment #2.
Thank you, Jani
BR,
Dnyaneshwar,
>Jani
>
> > /* Display ver 20 (based on GMD ID) */ \
> > func(lunarlake) \
> > /* Display ver 14.1 (based on GMD ID) */ \ diff --git
> > a/include/drm/intel/pciids.h b/include/drm/intel/pciids.h index
> > c6518b0992cf..f29034ccb36c 100644
> > --- a/include/drm/intel/pciids.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/intel/pciids.h
> > @@ -811,9 +811,12 @@
> > INTEL_ARL_S_IDS(MACRO__, ## __VA_ARGS__)
> >
> > /* MTL */
> > +#define INTEL_MTL_U_IDS(MACRO__, ...) \
> > + MACRO__(0x7D45, ## __VA_ARGS__)
> > +
> > #define INTEL_MTL_IDS(MACRO__, ...) \
> > MACRO__(0x7D40, ## __VA_ARGS__), \
> > - MACRO__(0x7D45, ## __VA_ARGS__), \
> > + INTEL_MTL_U_IDS(MACRO__, ## __VA_ARGS__), \
> > MACRO__(0x7D55, ## __VA_ARGS__), \
> > MACRO__(0x7D60, ## __VA_ARGS__), \
> > MACRO__(0x7DD5, ## __VA_ARGS__)
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel
