Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/msm/a6xx: Split out a7xx/a8xx device tables

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 at 01:38:19PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 11:55 AM Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 10/9/2026 6:49 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > This way we can start including generated tables for a8xx GPU snapshot
> > > in the device table (without having conflicts with earlier gens if we
> > > eventually try to retrofit this approach, or later gens in the future).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robin.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> > > index b44b0fd916aa..66c44cbc4d55 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> > > @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static const u32 a690_protect_regs[] = {
> > >  };
> > >  DECLARE_ADRENO_PROTECT(a690_protect, 48);
> > >
> > > -static const struct adreno_reglist a640_gbif[] = {
> > > +const struct adreno_reglist a640_gbif[] = {
> >
> > Is the removal of 'static' intentional here? I think some static checkers will
> > complain.
> 
> Yes, but alternatively we could just have a 2nd copy in
> a7xx_catalog.c, since it isn't that big of a table.  It was the one
> awkward aspect of the split.

I think it might be a better option.


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry