linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] fpga: dfl: pci: Add generic OFS PCI PID

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e5580849-c137-fb61-0599-198c341bf688@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 10:09:50 -0800
From:   Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
To:     matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     "Zhang, Tianfei" <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>,
        "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>, "mdf@...nel.org" <mdf@...nel.org>,
        "Xu, Yilun" <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
        "linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] fpga: dfl: pci: Add generic OFS PCI PID


On 2/21/22 9:50 AM, matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022, Tom Rix wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2/18/22 1:03 AM, Zhang, Tianfei wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 12:16 AM
>>>> To: Zhang, Tianfei <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>; Wu, Hao 
>>>> <hao.wu@...el.com>;
>>>> mdf@...nel.org; Xu, Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>; 
>>>> linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org;
>>>> linux-doc@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: corbet@....net; Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] fpga: dfl: pci: Add generic OFS PCI PID
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/14/22 3:26 AM, Tianfei zhang wrote:
>>>>> From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add the PCI product id for an Open FPGA Stack PCI card.
>>>> Is there a URL to the card ?
>>> This PCIe Device IDs have registered by Intel.
>> A URL is useful to introduce the board, Is there one ?
>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tianfei Zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    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
>>>>> 83b604d6dbe6..cb2fbf3eb918 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c
>>>>> @@ -76,12 +76,14 @@ 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_OFS        0xbcce
>>>> INTEL_OFS is a generic name, pci id's map to specific cards
>>>>
>>>> Is there a more specific name for this card ?
>>> I think using INTEL_OFS is better, because INTEL_OFS is the Generic 
>>> development platform can support multiple cards which using OFS 
>>> specification,
>>> like Intel PAC N6000 card.
>>
>> I would prefer something like PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PAC_N6000 because 
>> it follows an existing pattern.  Make it easy on a developer, they 
>> will look at their board or box, see X and try to find something 
>> similar in the driver source.
>>
>> To use OSF_ * the name needs a suffix to differentiate it from future 
>> cards that will also use ofs.
>>
>> If this really is a generic id please explain in the doc patch how 
>> every future board with use this single id and how a driver could 
>> work around a hw problem in a specific board with a pci id covering 
>> multiple boards.
>>
>> Tom
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> The intent is to have a generic device id that can be used with many 
> different boards.  Currently, we have FPGA implementations for 3 
> different boards using this generic id.  We may need a better name for 
> device id than OFS.  More precisely this generic device id means a PCI 
> function that is described by a Device Feature List (DFL).  How about 
> PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DFL?
>
> With a DFL device id, the functionality of the PF/VF is determined by 
> the contents of the DFL.  Each Device Feature Header (DFH) in the DFL 
> has a revision field that can be used identify "broken" hw, or new 
> functionality added to a feature.  Additionally, since the DFL is 
> typically used in a FPGA, the broken hardware, can and should be fixed 
> in most cases.

How is lspci supposed to work ?

A dfl set can change with fw updates and in theory different boards 
could have the same set.

Tom

>
> Matthew
>>
>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>>    /* 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_OFS_VF        0xbccf
>>>>>
>>>>>    static struct pci_device_id cci_pcie_id_tbl[] = {
>>>>>        {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X),},
>>>> @@
>>>>> -95,6 +97,8 @@ 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_OFS),},
>>>>> +    {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL,
>>>> PCIE_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_OFS_VF),},
>>>>>        {0,}
>>>>>    };
>>>>>    MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, cci_pcie_id_tbl);
>>
>>