From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paulo Zanoni Subject: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: add PCH_NONE to enum intel_pch Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:48:16 -0300 Message-ID: <1341352096-19712-1-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com> References: <1341341853-4092-1-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-gh0-f177.google.com (mail-gh0-f177.google.com [209.85.160.177]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D34A9E85D for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ghbf11 with SMTP id f11so6290381ghb.36 for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:48:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1341341853-4092-1-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Paulo Zanoni List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org From: Paulo Zanoni And rely on the fact that it's 0 to assume that machines without a PCH will have PCH_NONE as dev_priv->pch_type. Just today I finally realized that HAS_PCH_IBX is true for machines without a PCH. IMHO this is totally counter-intuitive and I don't think it's a good idea to assume that we're going to check for HAS_PCH_IBX only after we check for HAS_PCH_SPLIT. I believe that in the future we'll have more PCH types and checks like: if (HAS_PCH_IBX(dev) || HAS_PCH_CPT(dev)) will become more and more common. There's a good chance that we may break non-PCH machines by adding these checks in code that runs on all machines. I also believe that the HAS_PCH_SPLIT check will become less common as we add more and more different PCH types. We'll probably start replacing checks like: if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev)) foo(); else bar(); with: if (HAS_PCH_NEW(dev)) baz(); else if (HAS_PCH_OLD(dev) || HAS_PCH_IBX(dev)) foo(); else bar(); and this may break gen 2/3/4. As far as we have investigated, this patch will affect the behavior of intel_hdmi_dpms and intel_dp_link_down on gen 4. In both functions the code inside the HAS_PCH_IBX check is for IBX-specific workarounds, so we should be safe. If we start bisecting gen 2/3/4 bugs to this commit we should consider replacing the HAS_PCH_IBX checks with something else. V2: Improve commit message, list possible side effects and solution. Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) Another alternative would have been to change HAS_PCH_IBX to also check for HAS_PCH_SPLIT, but I'm not exactly in favor of adding more conditionals... diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h index b7a1eaa..b12e79a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h @@ -333,6 +333,7 @@ enum no_fbc_reason { }; enum intel_pch { + PCH_NONE = 0, /* No PCH present */ PCH_IBX, /* Ibexpeak PCH */ PCH_CPT, /* Cougarpoint PCH */ PCH_LPT, /* Lynxpoint PCH */ -- 1.7.10.2