On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:59:34AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 01:47:30PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:10:13AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:50:33PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote: > > > > +static const struct ddi_buf_trans *skl_get_buf_trans_dp(struct drm_device *dev, > > > > > > struct drm_i915_private not struct drm_device! > > > > The device uses both dev and dev_priv; only passing in > > drm_i915_private wouldn't provide access to dev, > > or am I missing something? > > Hmm, Oh, you didn't set bits in intel_info for ult/ulx. Instead you have > large if chains hidden in macros. > > So another task is to translate IS_*_UL? over to using a field in > intel_info to reduce the code size (at the expense of more intel_info > data). > > #define IS_SKL_ULT(P) (IS_SKL(P) && INTEL_INFO(P)->is_ult) > #define IS_SKL_ULX(P) (IS_SKL(P) && INTEL_INFO(P)->is_ulx) I just followed the pattern of the existing IS_xxx_yyy macros. Cleanup sounds sensible; this patch merely aims to add a missing feature. Kind regards, David _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
