On Mon, 9 May 2011 11:42:13 -0700, Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 05 May 2011 23:57:56 +0100 > Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 May 2011 15:16:45 -0700, Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > We generally use the gen number to indicate the generation of the render > > > 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 for > > > 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 one > > > to test with...). > > > > 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 gen3 > > docs. > > 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.
pgp1dCjHRo7hy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
