[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915/bxt: Corrected the guid for bxt.

[Animesh Manna]

On 11/28/2016 4:54 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Animesh Manna <animesh.manna at intel.com> wrote:
>> On 11/23/2016 10:02 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:48:23PM +0530, Animesh Manna wrote:
>>>> Guid is changed for bxt platform, so corrected the guid for bxt.
>>>>
>>>> v1: Initial version as RFC.
>>>>
>>>> v2: Based on review comment from Jani and David,
>>>> have kept guid as binary format.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ananth Krishna R <ananth.krishna.r at intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharath K Veera <bharath.k.veera at intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna at intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>    1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>    mode change 100644 => 100755 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c
>>>> old mode 100644
>>>> new mode 100755
>>> 3 people handled this patch and none complained about making
>>> intel_acpi.c executable? What does happen when you try to execute it?
>> oh, will correct it in the next patchset.
>>>> index eb638a1..8c878ab
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c
>>>> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
>>>>    	acpi_handle dhandle;
>>>>    } intel_dsm_priv;
>>>>    
>>>> -static const u8 intel_dsm_guid[] = {
>>>> +static u8 intel_dsm_guid[] = {
>>> Why drop the const?
>> intel_dsm_guid is not updated anywhere, it used to assign it to a common
>> pointer based on platform check in my current implementation.
>> we can explicitly typecast to avoid compilation warning to a normal
>> pointer which will be used during dsm probe. Hope it will be fine.
>> Please let me know for any concern/suggestion.
> Doh, you use 'const u8 *guid', of course. The acpi_check_dsm uuid
> parameter is also const u8 *.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
Ok.


>
>>>>    	0xd3, 0x73, 0xd8, 0x7e,
>>>>    	0xd0, 0xc2,
>>>>    	0x4f, 0x4e,
>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,14 @@
>>>>    	0x0f, 0x13, 0x17, 0xb0, 0x1c, 0x2c
>>>>    };
>>>>    
>>>> +static u8 intel_dsm_guid_bxt[] = {
>>> Missing const.
>> Explained above.
>>>> +	0xc6, 0x41, 0x5b, 0x3e,
>>>> +	0x1d, 0xeb,
>>>> +	0x60, 0x42,
>>>> +	0x9d, 0x15,
>>>> +	0xc7, 0x1f, 0xba, 0xda, 0xe4, 0x14
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>>    static char *intel_dsm_port_name(u8 id)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	switch (id) {
>>>> @@ -113,12 +121,20 @@ static void intel_dsm_platform_mux_info(void)
>>>>    static bool intel_dsm_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	acpi_handle dhandle;
>>>> +	struct drm_device *dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>> +	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>>> dev == dev_priv, just a rose by another name. Use to_i915();
>>>
>>>> +	u8 *guid;
>>> Missing const.
>> Explained above.
>>>>    
>>>>    	dhandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev);
>>>>    	if (!dhandle)
>>>>    		return false;
>>>>    
>>>> -	if (!acpi_check_dsm(dhandle, intel_dsm_guid, INTEL_DSM_REVISION_ID,
>>>> +	if (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv))
>>>> +		guid = intel_dsm_guid_bxt;
>>>> +	else
>>>> +		guid = intel_dsm_guid;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!acpi_check_dsm(dhandle, guid, INTEL_DSM_REVISION_ID,
>>>>    			    1 << INTEL_DSM_FN_PLATFORM_MUX_INFO)) {
>>>>    		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("no _DSM method for intel device\n");
>>>>    		return false;
>>>> -- 
>>>> 1.9.1
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>>>> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx