A few reasons why I'd like to do that:
- IS_ULT() started as a HSW-only macro but has grown to mean IS_BDW_ULT/ULX
as well. That means a few usages of IS_ULT() were slightly out of place
(because we really meant checking for IS_HSW_ULT()).
- Being a ULT/ULX package doesn't mean anything specific in term of
functionnality when looking across HSW/BDW/SKL, it's more about the TDP of
that SKU. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to continue growing IS_ULT() to
encompass SKL.
- The SPT detection code was using IS_ULT() for consistency with HSW and
then, because the current IS_ULT() macro didn't know about SKL, we were
triggering a warning. We now know that the pairing is a 1:1 relationship
between the ULT/ULX SKUs and the LP PCHs, so we don't strickly need this
check there and there's nothing needing a ULT/ULX check on SKL at the
moment, so just discarded it in the PCH detection code.
--
Damien
Damien Lespiau (6):
drm/i915: Use IS_HSW_ULT() in a HSW specific code path
drm/i915: Use IS_HSW_ULT() in HAS_IPS()
drm/i915: Spell out IS_HSW/BDW_ULT() in intel_crt_present()
drm/i915: Use IS_HSW_ULT() in HSW CDCLK clock read-out
drm/i915/skl: Don't check for ULT/ULX when detecting the PCH
drm/i915: Remove IS_ULT()
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 6 ++----
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 3 +--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--
1.8.3.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
