fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000
diff mbox series

Message ID 1594282705-32289-1-git-send-email-yilun.xu@intel.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000
Related show

Commit Message

Xu Yilun July 9, 2020, 8:18 a.m. UTC
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(+)

Comments

Wu, Hao July 9, 2020, 9:10 a.m. UTC | #1
> 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
Xu Yilun July 9, 2020, 9:35 a.m. UTC | #2
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
Wu, Hao July 9, 2020, 10:14 a.m. UTC | #3
> 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
Tom Rix July 9, 2020, 1 p.m. UTC | #4
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
>
Xu Yilun July 10, 2020, 5:24 a.m. UTC | #5
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
> >
Wu, Hao July 10, 2020, 6:14 a.m. UTC | #6
> 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
Moritz Fischer July 10, 2020, 3:46 p.m. UTC | #7
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
Xu Yilun July 13, 2020, 1:52 a.m. UTC | #8
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

Patch
diff mbox series

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);