[Intel-gfx] [RFC v4 1/2] drm/i915: Add RPL-U sub platform

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 03:38:05PM +0530, Chaitanya Kumar Borah wrote:
>Separate out RPLU device ids and add them to both RPL and
>newly created RPL-U subplatforms.
>
>v2: (Matt)
>    - Sort PCI-IDs numerically
>    - Name the sub-platform to accurately depict what it is for
>    - Make RPL-U part of RPL subplatform
>
>v3: revert to RPL-U subplatform (Jani)
>
>v4: (Jani)
>    - Add RPL-U ids to RPL-P platform

humn...

>diff --git a/include/drm/i915_pciids.h b/include/drm/i915_pciids.h
>index 4a4c190f7698..5824e1d7d162 100644
>--- a/include/drm/i915_pciids.h
>+++ b/include/drm/i915_pciids.h
>@@ -684,14 +684,18 @@
> 	INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0xA78A, info), \
> 	INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0xA78B, info)
>
>+/* RPL-U */
>+#define INTEL_RPLU_IDS(info) \
>+	INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0xA721, info), \
>+	INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0xA7A1, info), \
>+	INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0xA7A9, info)
>+
> /* RPL-P */
> #define INTEL_RPLP_IDS(info) \
>+	INTEL_RPLU_IDS(info), \

drive by comment while reviewing other stuff. Why was U added to the
P macro? That looks odd. Adding it to the rpl subplatform, together with P would
be ok, but in this macro it looks wrong. Doing it the other way I think the
only affected place would be the early-quirks, which would need a separate entry,
but admitedly they should had been INTEL_RPL_IDS() with all the
variants.


Lucas De Marchi