Quoting dong.y...@intel.com (2019-08-14 10:54:05)
> From: "Yang, Dong" <dong.y...@intel.com>
> 
> Broxton steppings starting from GT E0 have fixed the bug, remove
> WA since stepping GT E0.
> 
> v2: add comment in code, by:
> Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>

I didn't suggest any comments, I suggested to change the code.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Yang, Dong <dong.y...@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 5f3e5c13fbaa..a0dfd1926b1b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -2141,6 +2141,8 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>  #define BXT_REVID_B0           0x3
>  #define BXT_REVID_B_LAST       0x8
>  #define BXT_REVID_C0           0x9
> +#define BXT_REVID_D0           0xC
> +#define BXT_REVID_E0           0xD
>  
>  #define IS_BXT_REVID(dev_priv, since, until) \
>         (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv) && IS_REVID(dev_priv, since, until))
> @@ -2357,7 +2359,8 @@ static inline bool intel_scanout_needs_vtd_wa(struct 
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  static inline bool
>  intel_ggtt_update_needs_vtd_wa(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
> -       return IS_BROXTON(dev_priv) && intel_vtd_active();
> +       /* Broxton steppings starting from E0 have fixed the bug. */

This comment is not needed.

I suggested using BXT_REVID_D_LAST define instead of D0.

Regards, Joonas
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to