[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/6] drm/i915: Introduce i9xx_has_pfit()

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:24:16PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 18/03/2019 16:56, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Make the code self-documenting by introducing i9xx_has_pfit().
> > Also make PNV an exceptional case so that we can unset
> > .is_mobile for the desktop variant.
> > 
> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > index 61acbaf2af75..0ddd83dbd768 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > @@ -7961,14 +7961,22 @@ static int vlv_crtc_compute_clock(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >   	return 0;
> >   }
> >   
> > +static bool i9xx_has_pfit(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > +{
> > +	if (IS_I830(dev_priv))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	return IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4) ||
> 
> Shouldn't this be INTEL_GEN() >= 4 || ... ? Or even this check alone as 
> first in the function.

Doh. I had it as >=4 initially, but then decided that ilk+ aren't
relevant here and tweaked it to gen4 only. Which means I totally
forgot about vlv/chv. v2 coming up.

> 
> > +		IS_PINEVIEW(dev_priv) || IS_MOBILE(dev_priv);
> > +}
> > +
> >   static void i9xx_get_pfit_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >   				 struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config)
> >   {
> >   	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(crtc->base.dev);
> >   	u32 tmp;
> >   
> > -	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) <= 3 &&
> > -	    (IS_I830(dev_priv) || !IS_MOBILE(dev_priv)))
> > +	if (!i9xx_has_pfit(dev_priv))
> >   		return;
> >   
> >   	tmp = I915_READ(PFIT_CONTROL);
> > 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tvrtko

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel