On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:53:34PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: > > > On 7/18/2014 4:26 PM, Damien Lespiau wrote: > >On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:04:03AM +0530, sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>This series prepares future platform enabling by changing HAS_PCH_SPLIT to more > >>appropriate check since the code accessed may not have anything to do with > >>having PCH or not. > > > >Hi Sonika, > > > >HAS_PCH_SPLIT() is true for Ironlake (gen 5) as it's paired with the > >Ibex Peak PCH. > > > >In various patches, the condition needs to be INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 5 > >then. > > > I am sorry, my understanding was that HAS_PCH_SPLIT is equivalent to > (gen > 5 && !(IS_VALLEYVIEW) ) > So, is it like, HAS_PCH_SPLIT is equivalent to (gen >=5 && !(IS_VALEYVIEW)) Yes, indeed! -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
