Re: [PATCH 0/7] Future preparation patches

Jindal, Sonika
2014-07-21T05:46:30Z

On 7/18/2014 7:00 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 02:04:56PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:53:34PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/18/2014 4:26 PM, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:04:03AM +0530, sonika.jindal@intel.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This series prepares future platform enabling by changing HAS_PCH_SPLIT to more
>>>>> appropriate check since the code accessed may not have anything to do with
>>>>> having PCH or not.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sonika,
>>>>
>>>> HAS_PCH_SPLIT() is true for Ironlake (gen 5) as it's paired with the
>>>> Ibex Peak PCH.
>>>>
>>>> In various patches, the condition needs to be INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 5
>>>> then.
>>>>
>>> I am sorry, my understanding was that HAS_PCH_SPLIT is equivalent to
>>> (gen > 5 && !(IS_VALLEYVIEW) )
>>> So, is it like, HAS_PCH_SPLIT is equivalent to (gen >=5 && !(IS_VALEYVIEW))
>>
>> Yes, indeed!
>
> Since the patches need to be respun anyway, I vote for the introduction of
> HAS_GMCH_DISPLAY for the gen < 5 || IS_VLV condition. Since vlv (i.e. byt
> + chv) have essentially inherited the gmch display block from gen3/4. I
> think that would help the readability of the code quite a bit.
>
> Comments?
> -Daniel
>
Ok, I will add this and send the patches again.

-Sonika