On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 07:14:34PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
>
> The spec doesn't use a definite article in front of SAGV. The
> rules regarding articles and initialisms are super fuzzy, but
> at least to my ears it sounds much more natural to not have
> the article. Perhaps because I tend to pronounce it as
> "sag-vee" instead of spelling out the letters one at a time.
> Actually I might still prefer to leave out the article if I
> did spell them out.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index 40cb18c61e11..0843990ebf9f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -3667,25 +3667,25 @@ intel_enable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> if (dev_priv->sagv_status == I915_SAGV_ENABLED)
> return 0;
>
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling the SAGV\n");
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling SAGV\n");
> mutex_lock(&dev_priv->pcu_lock);
>
> ret = sandybridge_pcode_write(dev_priv, GEN9_PCODE_SAGV_CONTROL,
> GEN9_SAGV_ENABLE);
>
> - /* We don't need to wait for the SAGV when enabling */
> + /* We don't need to wait for SAGV when enabling */
> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->pcu_lock);
>
> /*
> * Some skl systems, pre-release machines in particular,
> - * don't actually have an SAGV.
> + * don't actually have SAGV.
> */
> if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv) && ret == -ENXIO) {
> DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("No SAGV found on system, ignoring\n");
> dev_priv->sagv_status = I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED;
> return 0;
> } else if (ret < 0) {
> - DRM_ERROR("Failed to enable the SAGV\n");
> + DRM_ERROR("Failed to enable SAGV\n");
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -3704,7 +3704,7 @@ intel_disable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> if (dev_priv->sagv_status == I915_SAGV_DISABLED)
> return 0;
>
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling the SAGV\n");
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling SAGV\n");
> mutex_lock(&dev_priv->pcu_lock);
>
> /* bspec says to keep retrying for at least 1 ms */
> @@ -3716,14 +3716,14 @@ intel_disable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>
> /*
> * Some skl systems, pre-release machines in particular,
> - * don't actually have an SAGV.
> + * don't actually have SAGV.
> */
> if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv) && ret == -ENXIO) {
> DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("No SAGV found on system, ignoring\n");
> dev_priv->sagv_status = I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED;
> return 0;
> } else if (ret < 0) {
> - DRM_ERROR("Failed to disable the SAGV (%d)\n", ret);
> + DRM_ERROR("Failed to disable SAGV (%d)\n", ret);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -3754,7 +3754,7 @@ bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct drm_atomic_state
> *state)
> sagv_block_time_us = 10;
>
> /*
> - * SKL+ workaround: bspec recommends we disable the SAGV when we have
> + * SKL+ workaround: bspec recommends we disable SAGV when we have
> * more then one pipe enabled
> *
> * If there are no active CRTCs, no additional checks need be performed
> @@ -3795,7 +3795,7 @@ bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct drm_atomic_state
> *state)
> /*
> * If any of the planes on this pipe don't enable wm levels that
> * incur memory latencies higher than sagv_block_time_us we
> - * can't enable the SAGV.
> + * can't enable SAGV.
> */
> if (latency < sagv_block_time_us)
> return false;
> --
> 2.19.2
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
