On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:50:33PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
> +static const struct ddi_buf_trans *skl_get_buf_trans_dp(struct drm_device
> *dev,
struct drm_i915_private not struct drm_device!
> + int *n_entries)
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> + const struct ddi_buf_trans *ddi_translations;
> + static int is_095v = -1;
> +
> + if (is_095v == -1) {
> + u32 spr1 = I915_READ(UAIMI_SPR1);
> + is_095v = spr1 & SKL_VCCIO_MASK;
> + }
> +
> + if (IS_SKL_ULX(dev) && !is_095v) {
> + ddi_translations = skl_y_085v_ddi_translations_dp;
> + *n_entries = ARRAY_SIZE(skl_y_085v_ddi_translations_dp);
> + } else if (IS_SKL_ULT(dev)) {
> + ddi_translations = skl_u_ddi_translations_dp;
> + *n_entries = ARRAY_SIZE(skl_u_ddi_translations_dp);
> + } else {
> + ddi_translations = skl_ddi_translations_dp;
> + *n_entries = ARRAY_SIZE(skl_ddi_translations_dp);
> + }
These are static routing, but called fairly often. (Often enough that
you care to only read the reigster once.) Any reason not to preserve
these routing tables in dev_priv or, slightly more preferrable, intel_dp?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
