Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/i915: Prepare for multiple GTs

[Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Matt,

[...]

> > -int intel_uncore_setup_mmio(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
> > +int intel_uncore_setup_mmio(struct intel_uncore *uncore, phys_addr_t phys_addr)
> >  {
> >  	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = uncore->i915;
> > -	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(i915->drm.dev);
> > -	int mmio_bar;
> >  	int mmio_size;
> >  
> > -	mmio_bar = GRAPHICS_VER(i915) == 2 ? 1 : 0;
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Before gen4, the registers and the GTT are behind different BARs.
> >  	 * However, from gen4 onwards, the registers and the GTT are shared
> > @@ -2044,7 +2041,7 @@ int intel_uncore_setup_mmio(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
> >  	else
> >  		mmio_size = 2 * 1024 * 1024;
> >  
> > -	uncore->regs = pci_iomap(pdev, mmio_bar, mmio_size);
> > +	uncore->regs = ioremap(phys_addr, mmio_size);
> 
> Is there a specific reason we switch to ioremap() instead of
> pci_iomap_range()?  I.e., we could pass 'phys_offset' rather than
> 'phys_addr' and call
> 
>         pci_iomap_range(pdev, mmio_bar, phys_offset, mmio_size);
> 
> Not that it really matters too much either way as far as I can see;
> ioremap()/iounmap() should work fine too.

this was originally changed by Abdiel (I think) and I left as it
is as I tried to change as less as I could from the original
work.

> Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>

Thank you!

Andi