[Intel-gfx] [RFC 1/4] drm/i915: Add Display Gen info.

[Jani Nikula]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:00:54AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > I saw some mention somewhere on IS_GEN_RANGE, which looked clearer than 
>> > IS_GEN(dev_priv, s, e). Presumably that did not go anywhere since now 
>> > the proposal is the above? I have to say I am not sure it reads 
>> > completely intuitive when seen near in code:
>> >
>> > IS_GEN(dev_priv, 9)
>> > IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8, 9)
>> >
>> > Looks like a variable arg list and the difference in semantics does not 
>> > come through. As such I am leaning towards thinking it is too much churn 
>> > for unclear benefit. Or in other words I thought IS_GEN_RANGE was a 
>> > better direction.
>> 
>> Okay, thanks for the feedback. I'm not locked into any resolution yet,
>> apart from not churning anything until we have a better picture where
>> we're going.
>
> I believe we have 2 orthogonal discussions here where they shouldn't block
> each other.
>
> 1. The addition of DISPLAY_GEN checks to group platforms and prefer display
> gen checks over platform codenames. By doing this all platform enabling work for
> next platforms gets easier and less bureaucratic.
>
> 2. consolidated IS_GEN macro vs GEN_RANGE vs leave the way it currently is.

IMO if we add some display gen macro, it better be aligned with whatever
will be done with IS_GEN and friends from the start.

BR,
Jani.

>
>> 
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center