[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/8] drm/i915: introduce intel_has_sagv()

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 07:51:15PM +0000, Zanoni, Paulo R wrote:
> Em Sex, 2016-09-09 às 11:06 +0300, Jani Nikula escreveu:
> > On Thu, 08 Sep 2016, Lyude Paul <cpaul at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 11:59 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Lyude <cpaul at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 2016-09-06 at 21:52 -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +static bool
> > > > > > +intel_has_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	return IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv);
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not sure I agree on this one. Even if a system is skylake or
> > > > > kabylake,
> > > > > there's a couple of very early skylake machines that don't
> > > > > actually
> > > > > have an SAGV on them. Hence the I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED value
> > > > > we set
> > > > > if we get mailbox errors.
> > > > 
> > > > If by "very early" you mean pre-production, we don't care.
> 
> Ok, so I'd like some clarification regarding this from the maintainers.
> I always thought we didn't really care, but do this:
> 
> $ git grep _REVID_
> 
> If we don't care, why do we have this? Newer platforms also have this.
> And many of these REVID checks are only pre-prod.

For some reason no one has stepped up to remove them.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC