Re: [PATCH 10/10] [v2] drm/i915: Add a pipeless ivybridge configuration

From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
To: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] [v2] drm/i915: Add a pipeless ivybridge configuration
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:48:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130319124840.50d93b4a@jbarnes-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130319184948.GC1450@bwidawsk.net>

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:49:49 -0700
Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:42:33PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:17:55AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > FIXME: This is based on some HW being used for a demo. We should
> > > probably wait until we have confirmation on the IDs before upstreaming
> > > this patch.
> > 
> > I don't mind too much if we need to fixup the device after the fact, but
> > checking whether this is the shipping configuration shouldn't hurt.
> > 
> > More important is probably whether there's any quanta platform with the
> > same sdev/svendor ids without a fused pch. In that case I guess we need to
> > check for something else (maybe some fuse flags in the pch?).
> 
> I highly doubt it, but I don't know how to prove it. From what I gather
> on the internet and parsing through the limited uses in the kernel
> today, the subvendor/subdevice is unique.

I believe this is just an early board; for production I've requested a
unique PCI ID.  We'll see what happens...  If nothing else, the
existing subvendor/subdev is good for testing the new code.  We can
drop it if/when we get a better check.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center