[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 16/29] drm/i915: Fix location of stolen memory register for SandyBridge+

[Chris Wilson]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:38:04 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:41:15PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > A few of the earlier registers where enlarged and so the Base Data of
> > Stolem Memory Register (BDSM) was pushed to 0xb0.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c |    9 ++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > index a01ff74..a528e4a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > @@ -63,7 +63,11 @@ static unsigned long i915_stolen_to_physical(struct drm_device *dev)
> >  	 * its value of TOLUD.
> >  	 */
> >  	base = 0;
> > -	if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen > 3 || IS_G33(dev)) {
> > +	if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 6) {
> > +		/* Read Base Data of Stolen Memory Register (BDSM) directly */
> > +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, 0xB0, &base);
> 
> Wishlist (i.e. feel free to ignore): Can we have #defines instead of magic
> numbers here, please?

Shrug, I'm not sure in this instance. Each chipset generation seems to
move it about and give it a different name and rationale, so sticking with
a verbose comment made sense.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre