| Message ID | 1594282705-32289-1-git-send-email-yilun.xu@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 | expand |
> Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 > > Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000. > > Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com> > --- > drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 > --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev) > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X 0xBCBD > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X 0xBCC0 > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X 0x09C4 > +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here? Thanks Hao
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:49PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 > > > > Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 > > --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev) > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X0xBCBD > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X0xBCC0 > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X0x09C4 > > +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N30000x0B30 > > Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here? I think we could keep _PF_, also there is no need to support VF of pac n3000 in product now, but it does exist (ID: 0x0b31). And add _INTEL_ is good to me. Then how about this one: #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > Thanks > Hao
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:49PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: > > > Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 > > > > > > Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > > index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > > +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev) > > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X0xBCBD > > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X0xBCC0 > > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X0x09C4 > > > +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > > > Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here? > > I think we could keep _PF_, also there is no need to support VF of pac > n3000 in product now, but it does exist (ID: 0x0b31). > > And add _INTEL_ is good to me. > > Then how about this one: > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 I am just considering the alignment with ids defined in include/linux/pci_ids.h So drop _PF_ before _INTEL_ would be better? : ) Thanks Hao
On 7/9/20 3:14 AM, Wu, Hao wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:49PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: >>>> Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 >>>> >>>> Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c >>>> index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c >>>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev) >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X0xBCBD >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X0xBCC0 >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X0x09C4 >>>> +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 >>> Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here? >> I think we could keep _PF_, also there is no need to support VF of pac >> n3000 in product now, but it does exist (ID: 0x0b31). I was wondering about the vf id, thanks! >> >> And add _INTEL_ is good to me. >> >> Then how about this one: >> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > I am just considering the alignment with ids defined in include/linux/pci_ids.h > So drop _PF_ before _INTEL_ would be better? : ) To be consistent, all the id's are intel and all could drop pf. Tom > > Thanks > Hao >
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 06:00:40AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote: > > On 7/9/20 3:14 AM, Wu, Hao wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:49PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: > >>>> Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 > >>>> > >>>> Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > >>>> index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > >>>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev) > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X0xBCBD > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X0xBCC0 > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X0x09C4 > >>>> +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > >>> Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here? > >> I think we could keep _PF_, also there is no need to support VF of pac > >> n3000 in product now, but it does exist (ID: 0x0b31). > > I was wondering about the vf id, thanks! > > >> > >> And add _INTEL_ is good to me. > >> > >> Then how about this one: > >> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > I am just considering the alignment with ids defined in include/linux/pci_ids.h > > So drop _PF_ before _INTEL_ would be better? : ) > > To be consistent, all the id's are intel and all could drop pf. That's good to me after checking the pci_ids.h. So we have: #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > Tom > > > > > Thanks > > Hao > >
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 06:00:40AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote: > > > > On 7/9/20 3:14 AM, Wu, Hao wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:49PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: > > >>>> Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 > > >>>> > > >>>> Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000. > > >>>> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++ > > >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > >>>> > > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > >>>> index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 > > >>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > >>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > >>>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev > *pcidev) > > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X0xBCBD > > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X0xBCC0 > > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X0x09C4 > > >>>> +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > >>> Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here? > > >> I think we could keep _PF_, also there is no need to support VF of pac > > >> n3000 in product now, but it does exist (ID: 0x0b31). > > > > I was wondering about the vf id, thanks! > > > > >> > > >> And add _INTEL_ is good to me. > > >> > > >> Then how about this one: > > >> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > > I am just considering the alignment with ids defined in > include/linux/pci_ids.h > > > So drop _PF_ before _INTEL_ would be better? : ) > > > > To be consistent, all the id's are intel and all could drop pf. > > That's good to me after checking the pci_ids.h. So we have: > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 Sounds good to me. Hao
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:14:19AM +0000, Wu, Hao wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 06:00:40AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote: > > > > > > On 7/9/20 3:14 AM, Wu, Hao wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:49PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: > > > >>>> Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com> > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com> > > > >>>> --- > > > >>>> drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++ > > > >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > > >>>> index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 > > > >>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > > >>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > > >>>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev > > *pcidev) > > > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X0xBCBD > > > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X0xBCC0 > > > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X0x09C4 > > > >>>> +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > > >>> Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here? > > > >> I think we could keep _PF_, also there is no need to support VF of pac > > > >> n3000 in product now, but it does exist (ID: 0x0b31). > > > > > > I was wondering about the vf id, thanks! > > > > > > >> > > > >> And add _INTEL_ is good to me. > > > >> > > > >> Then how about this one: > > > >> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > > > I am just considering the alignment with ids defined in > > include/linux/pci_ids.h > > > > So drop _PF_ before _INTEL_ would be better? : ) > > > > > > To be consistent, all the id's are intel and all could drop pf. > > > > That's good to me after checking the pci_ids.h. So we have: > > > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > Sounds good to me. > > Hao Heads up I was gonna send out the PR early next week. I can fix this up myself if you want if you want or you can resend it? Thanks, Moritz
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 08:46:16AM -0700, Moritz Fischer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:14:19AM +0000, Wu, Hao wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 06:00:40AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7/9/20 3:14 AM, Wu, Hao wrote: > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:49PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: > > > > >>>> Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> > > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com> > > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> > > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com> > > > > >>>> --- > > > > >>>> drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++ > > > > >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > > > >>>> index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 > > > > >>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > > > >>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > > > > >>>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev > > > *pcidev) > > > > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X0xBCBD > > > > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X0xBCC0 > > > > >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X0x09C4 > > > > >>>> +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > > > >>> Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here? > > > > >> I think we could keep _PF_, also there is no need to support VF of pac > > > > >> n3000 in product now, but it does exist (ID: 0x0b31). > > > > > > > > I was wondering about the vf id, thanks! > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> And add _INTEL_ is good to me. > > > > >> > > > > >> Then how about this one: > > > > >> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > > > > I am just considering the alignment with ids defined in > > > include/linux/pci_ids.h > > > > > So drop _PF_ before _INTEL_ would be better? : ) > > > > > > > > To be consistent, all the id's are intel and all could drop pf. > > > > > > That's good to me after checking the pci_ids.h. So we have: > > > > > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > Hao > > Heads up I was gonna send out the PR early next week. I can fix this up > myself if you want if you want or you can resend it? I sent the v2 patch for this. Please help check it. Thanks, Yilun > > Thanks, > Moritz
diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev) #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X 0xBCBD #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X 0xBCC0 #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X 0x09C4 +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 /* VF Device */ #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_INT_5_X 0xBCBF #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_INT_6_X 0xBCC1 @@ -76,6 +77,7 @@ static struct pci_device_id cci_pcie_id_tbl[] = { {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_INT_6_X),}, {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X),}, {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_DSC_1_X),}, + {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000),}, {0,} }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, cci_pcie_id_tbl);