[PATCH libdrm v4 1/1] amdgpu: move asic id table to a separate file

[Michel Dänzer]

On 31/05/17 10:17 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
>> On 31/05/17 07:31 AM, Li, Samuel wrote:
>>> From: Michel Dänzer [mailto:michel at daenzer.net]
>>>> On 30/05/17 06:16 AM, Samuel Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +67FF,      CF,     67FF:CF
>>>>> +67FF,      EF,     67FF:EF
>>>>
>>>> There should be no such dummy entries in the file. If it's useful,
>>>> amdgpu_get_marketing_name can return a dummy string based on the PCI ID
>>>> and revision when there's no matching entry in the file.
>>>
>>> [Sam] I forwarded another thread to you.
>>
>> Please make your argument explicitly, for the benefit of non-AMD readers
>> of the amd-gfx list.
>>
>> Anyway, I don't think that invalidates what I wrote, and Alex seems to
>> agree. "67FF:CF" isn't a marketing name, so there should be no such
>> entries in this file. It's not necessary anyway; assuming it's useful
>> for amdgpu_get_marketing_name to return such "names", it can generate
>> them on the fly when there is no matching entry in the file.
>>
>> Ideally the issues above should be fixed in the original file we get
>> from marketing (?), but meanwhile / failing that we should fix them up
>> (and can easily with Git).
> 
> Thinking about this more, it probably doesn't matter that much.  By
> the time any of these cards with no marketing names get onto shelves,
> the names will be filled in.  That said, it does seem strange to have
> these dummy entries.

Right, by the time a product is released, we should have the final
marketing name and can just add that directly. I really don't see the
point of adding such dummy entries before that in the libdrm repository.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer