On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:19:25PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> Unless future specs tells otherwise we can assume future gens
> inherit some stuff from the previous so let's handle
> missed cases when we know tehy should't be there and assume
> default equals newest one.
>
> No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> index dec20d6..e633d36 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> @@ -1202,8 +1202,6 @@ void intel_uncore_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>
> switch (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen) {
> default:
> - MISSING_CASE(INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen);
> - return;
> case 9:
> ASSIGN_WRITE_MMIO_VFUNCS(gen9);
> ASSIGN_READ_MMIO_VFUNCS(gen9);
> @@ -1242,6 +1240,10 @@ void intel_uncore_init(struct drm_device *dev)
> ASSIGN_WRITE_MMIO_VFUNCS(gen2);
> ASSIGN_READ_MMIO_VFUNCS(gen2);
> break;
> + case 1:
> + case 0:
> + MISSING_CASE(INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen);
> + return;
Seems pointless, and confusing since we don't support gen0-1.
> }
>
> if (intel_vgpu_active(dev)) {
> --
> 2.4.3
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
