Re: [PATCH 13/16] drm/xe/nvlp: Add NVL-P platform definition

[Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com>]

Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 09:59:22AM -0300, Gustavo Sousa wrote:
>> Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 06:43:19PM -0300, Gustavo Sousa wrote:
>> >> From: Shekhar Chauhan <shekhar.chauhan@intel.com>
>> >> 
>> >> Add platform definition along with device IDs for NVL-P.
>> >
>> > Not sure if you wanted to add bspec references to this one like you had
>> > for the Xe3p_LPG descriptor, but the flags you have here look correct to
>> > me for now and the PCI IDs look correct so,
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> I'll send v2 with the list of fields and Bspec references. I'm
>> copying/pasting them here as well, just in case you can spot any errors
>> before I post v2:
>> 
>>       .dma_mask_size (Bspec 74198)
>
> This matches the way we've justified this field on past platforms,
> although we've discovered that the "physical address range" value on
> that page doesn't necessarily directly translate to the dma_mask_size we
> need to use in software; there are cases like ADL-S where it isn't an
> exact match due to other characteristics of the base platform (MKTE and
> such).  But that extra information isn't really available in the
> graphics bspec, so I don't think we have any better reference that can
> be given.
>
>>       .has_cached_pt (Bspec 71582)
>>       .has_display (Bspec 74196)
>>       .has_flat_ccs (Bspec 65255)
>
> Not sure if this is the best page for FlatCCS since it doesn't really
> indicate that a platform does/doesn't support it (e.g., the page doesn't
> drop out when the bspec is filtered to platforms like CRI that lack
> compression).
>
> A better reference might be 74110 since it has a yes/no on compression
> support by platform.

Updated. Thanks!

--
Gustavo Sousa