From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] drm/i915: clear up the fdi/dp set_m_n
 confusion
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:49:10 -0700
Message-ID: <20130402134910.7483509c@jbarnes-desktop>
References: <1364463723-30252-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
	<1364463723-30252-2-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
	<20130402134752.6207a0a9@jbarnes-desktop>
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 oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com
	[50.87.16.10])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BEEBE5CC7
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue,  2 Apr 2013 13:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130402134752.6207a0a9@jbarnes-desktop>
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: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:47:52 -0700
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:41:56 +0100
> Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> 
> >  
> > +	/* DP has a bunch of special case unfortunately, so mark the pipe
> > +	 * accordingly. */
> > +	bool has_dp_encoder;
> 
> Looks pretty good, but I don't think this field is used anywhere?
> Maybe it belongs in a later patch?
> 
> Also, this makes me wonder if we should be clearing the m_n regs
> somewhere and asserting for them in a few places.
> 
> Definitely looks better than the current code though; CPU vs PCH writes
> sprinkled all about, and FDI thrown into the mix.
> 
> It's probably a bit unfair to say the HSW mode set is confused though;
> it's just using existing code as best it can.  These new bits are
> definitely clearer though.
> 

Oh and with the new field moved to another patch:
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center