Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Correcting the reg definitions for PORT_DFT

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com>
Cc: Minu Mathai <minu.mathai@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Correcting the reg definitions for PORT_DFT
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:24:31 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150609152431.GL5176@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5576FFC9.6080506@intel.com>

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 05/06/15 14:08, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 02:00:24PM +0100, Minu Mathai wrote:
> >> From: Minu <minu.mathai@intel.com>
> >>
> >> Display CRCs were not readable because the register defintions
> >> for PORT_DFT_I9XX and PORT_DFT2_G4X were wrong.
> >> MMIO offset needs to be added to these register offsets to fix them.
> >>
> >> Issue: GMINL-6869
> >> Signed-off-by: Minu Mathai <minu.mathai@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> >> index 7213224..c327c7c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> >> @@ -3193,7 +3193,7 @@ enum skl_disp_power_wells {
> >>  #define PCH_HDMIC	0xe1150
> >>  #define PCH_HDMID	0xe1160
> >>  
> >> -#define PORT_DFT_I9XX				0x61150
> >> +#define PORT_DFT_I9XX				(dev_priv->info.display_mmio_offset + 0x61150)
> > 
> > PORT_DFT_I9XX isn't used on VLV/CHV, so this doesn't change anything.
> > 
> >>  #define   DC_BALANCE_RESET			(1 << 25)
> >>  #define PORT_DFT2_G4X		(dev_priv->info.display_mmio_offset + 0x61154)
> >>  #define   DC_BALANCE_RESET_VLV			(1 << 31)
> 
> Regardless of whether it's used, we have an inconsistency between the
> definitions of PORT_DFT_I9XX and PORT_DFT2_G4X -- one includes the
> mmio_offset and the other doesn't. Personally I think the #define with
> an implicit dependency on an object called "dev_priv" is really ugly and
> we should move away from that style rather than adding mode of them, but
> that's a lot of work.
> 
> As Minu says PORT_DFT_I9XX isn't really needed after all, can we just
> delete it to remove the inconsistency?

No, it's used on g4x.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx