Re: [PATCH 0/7] Future preparation patches

Damien Lespiau
2014-07-18T13:04:58Z

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!

--
Damien