[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/6] Kill IS_ULT() in favour of the per-product variant

[Paulo Zanoni]

2014-10-03 15:46 GMT-03:00 Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com>:
> 2014-10-03 15:40 GMT-03:00 Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com>:
>> 2014-10-01 17:36 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>:
>>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 08:04:12PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>>>> A few reasons why I'd like to do that:
>>>>
>>>>   - IS_ULT() started as a HSW-only macro but has grown to mean IS_BDW_ULT/ULX
>>>>     as well. That means a few usages of IS_ULT() were slightly out of place
>>>>     (because we really meant checking for IS_HSW_ULT()).
>>>>
>>>>   - Being a ULT/ULX package doesn't mean anything specific in term of
>>>>     functionnality when looking across HSW/BDW/SKL, it's more about the TDP of
>>>>     that SKU. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to continue growing IS_ULT() to
>>>>     encompass SKL.
>>>>
>>>>   - The SPT detection code was using IS_ULT() for consistency with HSW and
>>>>     then, because the current IS_ULT() macro didn't know about SKL, we were
>>>>     triggering a warning. We now know that the pairing is a 1:1 relationship
>>>>     between the ULT/ULX SKUs and the LP PCHs, so we don't strickly need this
>>>>     check there and there's nothing needing a ULT/ULX check on SKL at the
>>>>     moment, so just discarded it in the PCH detection code.
>>
>> As far as I know (and as far as our WARNs inside intel_detect_pch()
>> have checked), the whole CPU/PCH pairing is a static thing. Can't we
>> try to kill the whole intel_detect_pch(), and change the HAS_PCH_FOO
>> macros to just check the PCI IDs or something like that?
>
> Also, we could just check at the FUSE_STRAP bits to see if things are
> ULT or not.

Also, for the whole series:
Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>

>
>>
>>>
>>> On the topic of ditching useless IS_FOO macros: For gen5+ the
>>> intel_info->is_mobile is similarly meaningless. Someone bored could make
>>> sure that we really don't have any pointless IS_MOBILE checks on those
>>> platforms and then garbage-collect all the intel_info structs.
>>> -Daniel
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Damien
>>>>
>>>> Damien Lespiau (6):
>>>>   drm/i915: Use IS_HSW_ULT() in a HSW specific code path
>>>>   drm/i915: Use IS_HSW_ULT() in HAS_IPS()
>>>>   drm/i915: Spell out IS_HSW/BDW_ULT() in intel_crt_present()
>>>>   drm/i915: Use IS_HSW_ULT() in HSW CDCLK clock read-out
>>>>   drm/i915/skl: Don't check for ULT/ULX when detecting the PCH
>>>>   drm/i915: Remove IS_ULT()
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c      | 6 ++----
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h      | 3 +--
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c     | 2 +-
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
>>>>  4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 1.8.3.1
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>>>> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Vetter
>>> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
>>> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>>> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paulo Zanoni
>
>
>
> --
> Paulo Zanoni



-- 
Paulo Zanoni