[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/9] drm/i915: Drop the definite article in front of SAGV

[Ville Syrjala]

From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>

The spec doesn't use a definite article in front of SAGV. The
rules regarding articles and initialisms are super fuzzy, but
at least to my ears it sounds much more natural to not have
the article. Perhaps because I tend to pronounce it as
"sag-vee" instead of spelling out the letters one at a time.
Actually I might still prefer to leave out the article if I
did spell them out.

Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 18 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
index 40cb18c61e11..0843990ebf9f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
@@ -3667,25 +3667,25 @@ intel_enable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 	if (dev_priv->sagv_status == I915_SAGV_ENABLED)
 		return 0;
 
-	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling the SAGV\n");
+	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling SAGV\n");
 	mutex_lock(&dev_priv->pcu_lock);
 
 	ret = sandybridge_pcode_write(dev_priv, GEN9_PCODE_SAGV_CONTROL,
 				      GEN9_SAGV_ENABLE);
 
-	/* We don't need to wait for the SAGV when enabling */
+	/* We don't need to wait for SAGV when enabling */
 	mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->pcu_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Some skl systems, pre-release machines in particular,
-	 * don't actually have an SAGV.
+	 * don't actually have SAGV.
 	 */
 	if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv) && ret == -ENXIO) {
 		DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("No SAGV found on system, ignoring\n");
 		dev_priv->sagv_status = I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED;
 		return 0;
 	} else if (ret < 0) {
-		DRM_ERROR("Failed to enable the SAGV\n");
+		DRM_ERROR("Failed to enable SAGV\n");
 		return ret;
 	}
 
@@ -3704,7 +3704,7 @@ intel_disable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 	if (dev_priv->sagv_status == I915_SAGV_DISABLED)
 		return 0;
 
-	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling the SAGV\n");
+	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling SAGV\n");
 	mutex_lock(&dev_priv->pcu_lock);
 
 	/* bspec says to keep retrying for at least 1 ms */
@@ -3716,14 +3716,14 @@ intel_disable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 
 	/*
 	 * Some skl systems, pre-release machines in particular,
-	 * don't actually have an SAGV.
+	 * don't actually have SAGV.
 	 */
 	if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv) && ret == -ENXIO) {
 		DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("No SAGV found on system, ignoring\n");
 		dev_priv->sagv_status = I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED;
 		return 0;
 	} else if (ret < 0) {
-		DRM_ERROR("Failed to disable the SAGV (%d)\n", ret);
+		DRM_ERROR("Failed to disable SAGV (%d)\n", ret);
 		return ret;
 	}
 
@@ -3754,7 +3754,7 @@ bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
 		sagv_block_time_us = 10;
 
 	/*
-	 * SKL+ workaround: bspec recommends we disable the SAGV when we have
+	 * SKL+ workaround: bspec recommends we disable SAGV when we have
 	 * more then one pipe enabled
 	 *
 	 * If there are no active CRTCs, no additional checks need be performed
@@ -3795,7 +3795,7 @@ bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
 		/*
 		 * If any of the planes on this pipe don't enable wm levels that
 		 * incur memory latencies higher than sagv_block_time_us we
-		 * can't enable the SAGV.
+		 * can't enable SAGV.
 		 */
 		if (latency < sagv_block_time_us)
 			return false;
-- 
2.19.2