[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't check for i830 in vlv specific code

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:44:30PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:06:35PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > index 51b4cd29f932..83eabd758ed9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > @@ -1546,7 +1546,7 @@ static void vlv_enable_pll(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> >  	BUG_ON(!IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv->dev));
> >  
> >  	/* PLL is protected by panel, make sure we can write it */
> > -	if (IS_MOBILE(dev_priv->dev) && !IS_I830(dev_priv->dev))
> > +	if (IS_MOBILE(dev_priv->dev))
> >  		assert_panel_unlocked(dev_priv, crtc->pipe);
> 
> My gut feeling is that the IS_MOBILE check could also be dropped. Not
> quite sure though since VLV_D is not mentioned anywhere in the docs
> AFAICS.

I think in the old gens we've pretty much just used IS_MOBILE as HAS_LVDS.
vlv/chv having edp panels instead makes that a bit more complicated, but
generally I think a new IS_MOBILE check is bogus.

> Anyway dropping the 830 check definitely makes sense so:
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>

Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch