Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/skl: Split the SKL PCI ids by GT

Rodrigo Vivi
2015-02-04T15:41:33Z

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Damien Lespiau
>> <damien.lespiau@intel.com> wrote:
>> > We need to have a separate GT3 struct intel_device_info to declare they
>> > have a second VCS. Let's start by splitting the PCI ids per-GT.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
>> > ---
>> > include/drm/i915_pciids.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
>> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/drm/i915_pciids.h b/include/drm/i915_pciids.h
>> > index 180ad0e..38a7c80 100644
>> > --- a/include/drm/i915_pciids.h
>> > +++ b/include/drm/i915_pciids.h
>> > @@ -259,21 +259,31 @@
>> > INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x22b2, info), \
>> > INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x22b3, info)
>> >
>> > -#define INTEL_SKL_IDS(info) \
>> > - INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1916, info), /* ULT GT2 */ \
>> > +#define INTEL_SKL_GT1_IDS(info) \
>> > INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1906, info), /* ULT GT1 */ \
>> > - INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1926, info), /* ULT GT3 */ \
>> > - INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1921, info), /* ULT GT2F */ \
>> > INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x190E, info), /* ULX GT1 */ \
>> > + INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x1902, info), /* DT GT1 */ \
>>
>> spec shows this id as GT2 DT
>
> That is weird, for the other ids, 0 << 4 means GT1, while GT2 are 1 << 4.
>
> Those ids have gone through review once, so 0x1902 was clearly marked as
> GT1 then. Could be an error in BSpec. will ask.
>
>>
>> > + INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x190B, info), /* Halo GT1 */ \
>> > + INTEL_VGA_DEVICE(0x190A, info) /* SRV GT1 */
>>
>> couldn't find those 2 on spec
>
> For these and the rest of those, I'd rather keep them in tree as they
> may stil be pre-production/early-adopters parts.
>
>> Also I've seem some ids there that aren't here...
>
> This is a known thing and on "purpose".
>
>> I know this patch doesn't introduce the those IDs I couldn't fine
>> so with 0x1902 fixed on v2 or on follow-up or explained consider this one here:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>
> Considering the above I think we should go ahead with this patch.

Agree!

>
> --
> Damien

--
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br