Re: [PATCH] intel_chipset: Merge igt chipsets

[Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:05:19PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:54:57 -0800
> Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> 
> > IGT is newer and arguably better. This change doesn't completely merge
> > the files because it's a bit simpler if we move the I9XX macro over to
> > IGT, and don't move over a few macros from IGT that libdrm doesn't care
> > about.
> > 
> > The advantage is being able to easily synchronize between the two
> > definitions.
> > 
> > It has been discussed, and would seem even easier if IGT simply used the
> > libdrm header files, however since we want to keep IGT as isolated as
> > possible, and many tests don't rely on libdrm, this isn't a good idea.
> > 
> > This patch has been sitting around on an internal tree for a while, but
> > because Jesse recently pushed VLV ID updates it painfully made me
> > realize that I should probably try to upstream it sooner rather than
> > later.
> > 
> > Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> > ---
> 
> Yeah it's fine with me.  Making merging less painful and spurious
> differences fewer is an improvement.
> 
> However, consolidating our PCI ID lists would be the best
> option.  If we can't use libdrm for that, what should we use?

I won't argue whether or not we should use libdrm as a default place for
chipset ids. I think we can agree that whether or not we make that
decision, this is beneficial.

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center