On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 08 May 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 02:45:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Wed, 08 May 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 09:47:16AM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > >> >> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 03:56:48PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> >> > It's confusing for INTEL_CFL_IDS() to include all CML PCI IDs. Even if > >> >> > we treat them the same in a lot of places, CML is a platform of its own, > >> >> > and the lists of PCI IDs should not conflate them. > > [snip] > > >> >> Why only CML and not AML and WHL as well? > >> > > >> > Why do we even have CML as a separate platform? The only difference > >> > I can see is is that we do allow_read_ctx_timestamp() for CML but > >> > not for CFL. Does that even make sense? > >> > >> git blame tells me: > >> > >> 5f4ae2704d59 ("drm/i915: Identify Cometlake platform") > >> dbc7e72897a4 ("drm/i915/gt: Make the CTX_TIMESTAMP readable on !rcs") > > > > Right. That explains why we need it on CML+. But is there some reason > > we can't just do it on CFL as well, even if not strictly necessary? > > I would assume that setting FORCE_TO_NONPRIV on an already > > non-privileged register should be totally fine. > > I have absolutely no idea. > > I'm somewhat thinking "CML being a separate platform" is a separate > problem from "CFL PCI ID macros including CML". > > I'm starting to think the PCI ID macros should be grouped by "does the > platform have a name of its own", That and/or "does bspec have a separate 'Confgurations <platform>' page?" > not by how those macros are actually > used by the driver. Keeping them separate at the PCI ID macro level just > reduces the pain in maintaining the PCI IDs, and lets us wiggle stuff > around in the driver how we see fit. Aye. > > And that spins back to Rodrigo's question, "Why only CML and not AML and > WHL as well?". Yeah, indeed. > > If we decide to stop treating CML as a separate platform in the > *driver*, that's another matter. Sure. Seeing it just got me wondering... -- Ville Syrjälä Intel