Re: [PATCH 0/7] Future preparation patches

Jindal, Sonika
2014-07-18T11:23:37Z

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))

-Sonika