On 12/4/15, 9:24 AM, "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 05:14:19PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 19:04 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 05:51:56PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 04:15:27PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote: >> > > > On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 16:05 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:30:28PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> > > > > > On Wed, 02 Dec 2015, Ville Syrjälä < >> > > > > > ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:11:40PM -0800, Wayne Boyer >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > The cherryview device shares many characteristics with >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > valleyview >> > > > > > > > device. When support was added to the driver for >> > > > > > > > cherryview, >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > corresponding device info structure included >> > > > > > > > .is_valleyview = >> > > > > > > > 1. >> > > > > > > > This is not correct and leads to some confusion. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This patch changes .is_valleyview to .is_cherryview in >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > cherryview >> > > > > > > > device info structure and defines the >> > > > > > > > HAS_GEN7_LP_FEATURES >> > > > > > > > macro. >> > > > > > > > Then where appropriate, instances of IS_VALLEYVIEW are >> > > > > > > > replaced >> > > > > > > > with >> > > > > > > > HAS_GEN7_LP_FEATURES to test for either a valleyview or a >> > > > > > > > cherryview >> > > > > > > > device. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't like the name of the macro. Most of the shared bits >> > > > > > > are >> > > > > > > display >> > > > > > > related, so we could have something like HAS_VLV_DISPLAY. >> > > > > > > For the >> > > > > > > rest, >> > > > > > > I think we could just test IS_VLV||IS_CHV explicitly. >> > > > > > > Unless >> > > > > > > someone >> > > > > > > can come up with a better name that covers everything? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Definitely NAK on HAS_GEN7_LP_FEATURES. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > HAS_VLV_DISPLAY would be a subset of HAS_GMCH_DISPLAY, which >> > > > > > I >> > > > > > guess >> > > > > > wouldn't be that bad... unless someone starts using that for >> > > > > > a >> > > > > > VLV||CHV >> > > > > > shorthand in non-display code. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I think I might just go for the verbose (IS_VALLEYVIEW || >> > > > > > IS_CHERRYVIEW) >> > > > > > all around. Especially since we've been brainwashed with the >> > > > > > old >> > > > > > vlv is >> > > > > > both vlv and chv code. >> > > > > >> > > > > HAS_GMCH_DISPLAY is what I've generally used, since usually you >> > > > > have >> > > > > a >> > > > > INTEL_INFO()->gen >= 5 test already somewhere. If we want to >> > > > > make >> > > > > this >> > > > > more explicit the proper name for vlv is BAYTRAIL, and for >> > > > > truely byt >> > > > > specific stuff we've named things byt_. So what about Defining >> > > > > an >> > > > > IS_BAYTRAIL instead for the cases where it's not vlv || chv. >> > > > >> > > > Baytrail is the platform name with the Valleyview graphics. Than >> > > > we >> > > > would have Cherry Trail and/or Braswell for Cherryview graphics >> > > > and >> > > > Apollo Lake for Broxton. So I would vote to stay with Valleyview, >> > > > Cherryview and Broxton only. >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > And what's the benefit of all this churn? >> > > > >> > > > Organize and prepare the code for future platforms. >> > > > Avoid more confusion like we had on IS_SKYLAKE x IS_KABYLAKE. >> > > > Make things more easy and clear if we decide to add .is_atom_lp >> > > > on >> > > > these platforms definition. >> > > >> > > .is_atom_lp is imo the more sensible change to do, since it >> > > includes bxt. >> > >> > BXT vs. VLV/CHV have practically nothing in common in the driver, >> > so I wouldn't go there. >> >> this was exactly the point where HAS_GEN7_LP_FEATURES appeared, > >Which is confusing since since CHV is gen8. And all the features that >are shared have nothing to do with the GT block which is what the gen >numbers identify. Thanks for the reviews and comments. I'll submit a new series that incorporates the updates and related fixes. Wayne Boyer _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
