linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: fpga: dfl-pci: Add PCIE device IDs for Intel DFL cards

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 04:20:51 +0000
From:   "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>
To:     "matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com" <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Xu, Yilun" <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
        "Weight, Russell H" <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
        "Muddebihal, Basheer Ahmed" <basheer.ahmed.muddebihal@...el.com>,
        "trix@...hat.com" <trix@...hat.com>,
        "mdf@...nel.org" <mdf@...nel.org>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "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>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Zhang, Tianfei" <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: fpga: dfl-pci: Add PCIE device IDs for
 Intel DFL cards

> 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@...ux.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@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tianfei Zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.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