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

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:52:18PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 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>

All merged, thanks.
-Daniel

> 
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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

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