From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/26] agp/intel: add ValleyView AGP driver
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:17:33 -0700
Message-ID: <20120326181732.GA17740@bolo_yeung.jf.intel.com>
References: <1332452348-8814-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<1332452348-8814-17-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<20120326021631.GC6534@seagal.kumite>
	<20120326070828.GB4014@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC79CA0B7A
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120326070828.GB4014@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=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: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 09:08:28AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 07:16:31PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > I'm pretty torn about whether or not we actually want to use .gen=7
> > (both here and in the other patch). But if it's what you think is best,
> > let's do it.
> 
> gen here is only used in the intel-gtt code. I expect it's prette
> irrelevant (haven't checked though).
> 
> > do you really want gen6_check_flags? or i830_check_flags?
> > FWIW, I have no clue why we even need check_flags()
> 
> Backwards compat for tha fake agp interface. We don't use it and hence
> it's totally irrelevant. We really should reap all this crap for gen6+ at
> least.

It seemed like we gained nothing by doing this, when I looked
beforehand.

> -Daniel