On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Damien Lespiau >> <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > We need to have a separate GT3 struct intel_device_info to declare they >> > have a second VCS. Let's start by splitting the PCI ids per-GT. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > include/drm/i915_pciids.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++--------- >> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/include/drm/i915_pciids.h b/include/drm/i915_pciids.h >> > index 180ad0e..38a7c80 100644 >> > --- a/include/drm/i915_pciids.h >> > +++ b/include/drm/i915_pciids.h >> > @@ -259,21 +259,31 @@ >> > INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x22b2, info), \ >> > INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x22b3, info) >> > >> > -#define INTEL_SKL_IDS(info) \ >> > - INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1916, info), /* ULT GT2 */ \ >> > +#define INTEL_SKL_GT1_IDS(info) \ >> > INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1906, info), /* ULT GT1 */ \ >> > - INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1926, info), /* ULT GT3 */ \ >> > - INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1921, info), /* ULT GT2F */ \ >> > INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x190E, info), /* ULX GT1 */ \ >> > + INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1902, info), /* DT GT1 */ \ >> >> spec shows this id as GT2 DT > > That is weird, for the other ids, 0 << 4 means GT1, while GT2 are 1 << 4. > > Those ids have gone through review once, so 0x1902 was clearly marked as > GT1 then. Could be an error in BSpec. will ask. > >> >> > + INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x190B, info), /* Halo GT1 */ \ >> > + INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x190A, info) /* SRV GT1 */ >> >> couldn't find those 2 on spec > > For these and the rest of those, I'd rather keep them in tree as they > may stil be pre-production/early-adopters parts. > >> Also I've seem some ids there that aren't here... > > This is a known thing and on "purpose". > >> I know this patch doesn't introduce the those IDs I couldn't fine >> so with 0x1902 fixed on v2 or on follow-up or explained consider this one here: >> >> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > Considering the above I think we should go ahead with this patch. Agree! > > -- > Damien -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
