[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fce465f5-4d3d-aed1-e2f9-c7b31d72ce08@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:18:57 +0200
From: Amadeusz Sławiński
<amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/8] ALSA: hda: Update PCI ID list
On 6/28/2023 4:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:51:30PM +0200, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote:
>> Use PCI device IDs from pci_ids.h header and while at it change to using
>> PCI_VDEVICE macro, to simplify declarations. This allows to change magic
>> number PCI vendor IDs to macro ones for all vendors. For Intel devices
>> use device IDs macros where defined.
>
> ...
>
>> ((pci)->device == 0x490d) || \
>> ((pci)->device == 0x4f90) || \
>> ((pci)->device == 0x4f91) || \
>> ((pci)->device == 0x4f92)))
>
> Why are not these be added in the header as well for the sake of consistency?
Will do.
>
> ...
>
>> /* CPT */
>> - { PCI_DEVICE(0x8086, 0x1c20),
>> + { PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, 0x1c20),
>> .driver_data = AZX_DRIVER_PCH | AZX_DCAPS_INTEL_PCH_NOPM },
>
> With the first patch seems all of these (x86) can be converted
> to use PCI_DEVICE_DATA().
>
Main reason is that some of device ids are missing and PCI_DEVICE_DATA()
requires them to be defined. I didn't want to mix both PCI_VDEVICE() and
PCI_DEVICE_DATA().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists