On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 at 01:38:19PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 11:55 AM Akhil P Oommen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 10/9/2026 6:49 PM, Rob Clark wrote: > > > This way we can start including generated tables for a8xx GPU snapshot > > > in the device table (without having conflicts with earlier gens if we > > > eventually try to retrofit this approach, or later gens in the future). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c > > > index b44b0fd916aa..66c44cbc4d55 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c > > > @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static const u32 a690_protect_regs[] = { > > > }; > > > DECLARE_ADRENO_PROTECT(a690_protect, 48); > > > > > > -static const struct adreno_reglist a640_gbif[] = { > > > +const struct adreno_reglist a640_gbif[] = { > > > > Is the removal of 'static' intentional here? I think some static checkers > > will > > complain. > > Yes, but alternatively we could just have a 2nd copy in > a7xx_catalog.c, since it isn't that big of a table. It was the one > awkward aspect of the split.
I think it might be a better option. -- With best wishes Dmitry
