[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120326152011.GT4014@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:20:11 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
Cc: Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Yufeng Shen <miletus@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11 v3] drm/i915/intel_i2c: cleanup gmbus/gpio pin
assignments
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:26:43PM +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> There is no GMBUS "disabled" port 0, nor "reserved" port 7.
> For the other 6 ports there is a fixed 1:1 mapping between pin pairs and
> gmbus ports, which means every real gmbus port has a gpio pin.
>
> Given these realizations, clean up gmbus initialization.
>
> Tested on Sandybridge (gen 6, PCH == CougarPoint) hardware.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 1 -
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 63 ++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -370,16 +365,6 @@ static const struct i2c_algorithm gmbus_algorithm = {
> */
> int intel_setup_gmbus(struct drm_device *dev)
> {
> - static const char *names[GMBUS_NUM_PORTS] = {
> - "disabled",
> - "ssc",
> - "vga",
> - "panel",
> - "dpc",
> - "dpb",
> - "dpd",
> - "reserved",
> - };
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> int ret, i;
>
> @@ -397,13 +382,14 @@ int intel_setup_gmbus(struct drm_device *dev)
>
> for (i = 0; i < GMBUS_NUM_PORTS; i++) {
> struct intel_gmbus *bus = &dev_priv->gmbus[i];
> + u32 port = i + 1; /* +1 to map gmbus index to pin pair */
On reconsideration you move around gmbus ports here, which will break
things horribly. I've wondered a bit how that could possible work and
noticed that you fix things up in the a later patch when introducing
get_adapter.
This ordering breaks bisecting is a complete no-go. If you want to do this
(I still think the refactor is nice) you need to introduce get_adapter
first, then change the meaning of the array index in this patch while
adjusting the lookup in the new get_adapter function.
Yours, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@...ll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists