| Message ID | 20220303003534.3307971-3-matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add PCIE device IDs for Intel DFL cards | expand |
> Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: fpga: dfl-pci: Add PCIE device IDs for Intel DFL > cards Please remove "drivers" > > From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> > > Add the PCIE device IDs for Intel cards with Device Feature Lists > (DFL) to the pci_dev_table for the dfl-pci driver. > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Tianfei Zhang <tianfei.zhang@intel.com> > --- > v2: changed names from INTEL_OFS to INTEL_DFL > --- > drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > index 717ac9715970..8faf284509e7 100644 > --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c > @@ -77,12 +77,14 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev) > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_D5005 0x0B2B > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_SILICOM_PAC_N5010 0x1000 > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_SILICOM_PAC_N5011 0x1001 > +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DFL 0xbcce > > /* VF Device */ > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_INT_5_X 0xBCBF > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_INT_6_X 0xBCC1 > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_DSC_1_X 0x09C5 > #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_D5005_VF 0x0B2C > +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DFL_VF 0xbccf > > static struct pci_device_id cci_pcie_id_tbl[] = { > {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X),}, > @@ -96,6 +98,8 @@ static struct pci_device_id cci_pcie_id_tbl[] = { > {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, > PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_D5005_VF),}, > {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SILICOM_DENMARK, > PCIE_DEVICE_ID_SILICOM_PAC_N5010),}, > {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SILICOM_DENMARK, > PCIE_DEVICE_ID_SILICOM_PAC_N5011),}, > + {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DFL),}, > + {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, > PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DFL_VF),}, > {0,} Actually we never know if future devices will pick this id or not, so we don't have to enforce such a "generic" id and name here. Hm.. Maybe just OFS, I guess that if you have a newer generation card than OFS, you may probably want to use a new ID for the same reason that you don't pick the existing ones. : ) How do you think? Thanks Hao > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, cci_pcie_id_tbl); > -- > 2.25.1
diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c index 717ac9715970..8faf284509e7 100644 --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c @@ -77,12 +77,14 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev) #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_D5005 0x0B2B #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_SILICOM_PAC_N5010 0x1000 #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_SILICOM_PAC_N5011 0x1001 +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DFL 0xbcce /* VF Device */ #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_INT_5_X 0xBCBF #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_INT_6_X 0xBCC1 #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_VF_DSC_1_X 0x09C5 #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_D5005_VF 0x0B2C +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DFL_VF 0xbccf static struct pci_device_id cci_pcie_id_tbl[] = { {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X),}, @@ -96,6 +98,8 @@ static struct pci_device_id cci_pcie_id_tbl[] = { {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_D5005_VF),}, {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SILICOM_DENMARK, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_SILICOM_PAC_N5010),}, {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SILICOM_DENMARK, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_SILICOM_PAC_N5011),}, + {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DFL),}, + {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DFL_VF),}, {0,} }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, cci_pcie_id_tbl);