[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify IS_GEN vs IS_<product> usage
eric at anholt.net
Tue May 10 11:45:54 PDT 2011
On Mon, 9 May 2011 11:42:13 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 23:57:56 +0100
> Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 May 2011 15:16:45 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> > > We generally use the gen number to indicate the generation of the render
> > > portion of the chip. In some cases this isn't the same as the display
> > > generation (as in the case of G33 and GMA500). So codify the de facto
> > > usage by converting some IS_GEN checks into product specific checks for
> > > display related differences. (Note this makes me wonder about our G33
> > > watermark handling; shouldn't it be like 965 not 945? I don't have one
> > > to test with...).
> > As far as I've been able to tell, the current code works... So it can't
> > be too far wrong, and I don't recall any mention of deviations in the gen3
> > docs.
> The gen4 docs mention DevBLC in the FW* reg section though, and
> indicate that it has the same programming interface as Cantiga.
> Unfortunately I don't have one to test with or I'd check whether the
> GM45 code works on G33 as well.
This feels like a lot of churn to me, for the pre-gen4 chipsets at
least. gen2 is always is_830_display (which is overly specific), and
gen3 is always is_i915_display.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Intel-gfx