[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: Future proof uncore_init.

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:19:25PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> Unless future specs tells otherwise we can assume future gens
> inherit some stuff from the previous so let's handle
> missed cases when we know tehy should't be there and assume
> default equals newest one.
> 
> No functional changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> index dec20d6..e633d36 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> @@ -1202,8 +1202,6 @@ void intel_uncore_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>  
>  	switch (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen) {
>  	default:
> -		MISSING_CASE(INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen);
> -		return;
>  	case 9:
>  		ASSIGN_WRITE_MMIO_VFUNCS(gen9);
>  		ASSIGN_READ_MMIO_VFUNCS(gen9);
> @@ -1242,6 +1240,10 @@ void intel_uncore_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>  		ASSIGN_WRITE_MMIO_VFUNCS(gen2);
>  		ASSIGN_READ_MMIO_VFUNCS(gen2);
>  		break;
> +	case 1:
> +	case 0:
> +		MISSING_CASE(INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen);
> +		return;

Seems pointless, and confusing since we don't support gen0-1.

>  	}
>  
>  	if (intel_vgpu_active(dev)) {
> -- 
> 2.4.3
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC