From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Widawsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_chipset: Merge igt chipsets Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:14:13 -0800 Message-ID: <20130211231413.GA27854@lundgren.jf.intel.com> References: <1360518897-9490-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <20130211150519.56508ec7@jbarnes-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from shiva.chad-versace.us (209-20-75-48.static.cloud-ips.com [209.20.75.48]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3982E6051 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:12:38 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130211150519.56508ec7@jbarnes-desktop> 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: Jesse Barnes Cc: Intel GFX List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:05:19PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:54:57 -0800 > Ben Widawsky 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 > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky > > --- > > 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