From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify IS_GEN vs IS_<product>
	usage
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:45:54 -0700
Message-ID: <874o52xul9.fsf@pollan.anholt.net>
References: <1304633805-7505-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<0d30dc$m4ic2q@orsmga001.jf.intel.com>
	<20110509114213.34816211@jbarnes-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1788043129=="
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110509114213.34816211@jbarnes-desktop>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

--===============1788043129==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 9 May 2011 11:42:13 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> =
wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 23:57:56 +0100
> Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>=20
> > On Thu,  5 May 2011 15:16:45 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.=
org> wrote:
> > > We generally use the gen number to indicate the generation of the ren=
der
> > > portion of the chip.  In some cases this isn't the same as the display
> > > generation (as in the case of G33 and GMA500).  So codify the de facto
> > > usage by converting some IS_GEN checks into product specific checks f=
or
> > > display related differences.  (Note this makes me wonder about our G33
> > > watermark handling; shouldn't it be like 965 not 945?  I don't have o=
ne
> > > to test with...).
> >=20
> > As far as I've been able to tell, the current code works... So it can't
> > be too far wrong, and I don't recall any mention of deviations in the g=
en3
> > docs.
>=20
> The gen4 docs mention DevBLC in the FW* reg section though, and
> indicate that it has the same programming interface as Cantiga.
> Unfortunately I don't have one to test with or I'd check whether the
> GM45 code works on G33 as well.

This feels like a lot of churn to me, for the pre-gen4 chipsets at
least.  gen2 is always is_830_display (which is overly specific), and
gen3 is always is_i915_display.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk3Jh+IACgkQHUdvYGzw6vdAeACfTX1dx4XimK8t0HSN5nVX1+kA
FiIAnRFfx0cTeNx38LzON8RCpAfTMhu1
=shdx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

--===============1788043129==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1788043129==--