[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 01/30] drm/i915/xehpsdv: Correct parameters for IS_XEHPSDV_GT_STEP()

[Yokoyama, Caz]

On Fri, 2021-07-23 at 10:42 -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> During a rebase the parameters were partially renamed, but not
> completely.  Since the subsequent patches that start using this macro
> haven't landed on an upstream tree yet this didn't cause a build
> failure.
> 
> Fixes: 086df54e20be ("drm/i915/xehpsdv: add initial XeHP SDV
> definitions")
> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index d118834a4ed9..d44d0050beec 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -1562,8 +1562,8 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private
> *i915,
>  	(IS_ALDERLAKE_P(__i915) && \
>  	 IS_GT_STEP(__i915, since, until))
>  
> -#define IS_XEHPSDV_GT_STEP(p, since, until) \
> -	(IS_XEHPSDV(p) && IS_GT_STEP(__i915, since, until))
> +#define IS_XEHPSDV_GT_STEP(__i915, since, until) \
> +	(IS_XEHPSDV(__i915) && IS_GT_STEP(__i915, since, until))
Is your comment saying that the first parameter
of IS_XEHPSDV_GT_STEP(), p or __i915 must be the first parameter of
both IS_XEHPSDV() and IS_GT_STEP()? The older code is a bug, correct?
-caz

>  
>  /*
>   * DG2 hardware steppings are a bit unusual.  The hardware design
> was forked