Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: don't check for i830 in vlv specific code

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: don't check for i830 in vlv specific code
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:44:30 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140822124430.GV4193@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1408709195-21974-1-git-send-email-jani.nikula@intel.com>

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:06:35PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 51b4cd29f932..83eabd758ed9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -1546,7 +1546,7 @@ static void vlv_enable_pll(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>  	BUG_ON(!IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv->dev));
>  
>  	/* PLL is protected by panel, make sure we can write it */
> -	if (IS_MOBILE(dev_priv->dev) && !IS_I830(dev_priv->dev))
> +	if (IS_MOBILE(dev_priv->dev))
>  		assert_panel_unlocked(dev_priv, crtc->pipe);

My gut feeling is that the IS_MOBILE check could also be dropped. Not
quite sure though since VLV_D is not mentioned anywhere in the docs
AFAICS.

Anyway dropping the 830 check definitely makes sense so:
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>

>  
>  	I915_WRITE(reg, dpll);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC