netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] idpf: add support for IDPF PCI programming interface

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250901135635.GD15473@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 14:56:35 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@...el.com>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] idpf: add support for IDPF PCI programming
 interface

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:24:53AM -0700, Madhu Chittim wrote:
> From: Pavan Kumar Linga <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>
> 
> At present IDPF supports only 0x1452 and 0x145C as PF and VF device IDs
> on our current generation hardware. Future hardware exposes a new set of
> device IDs for each generation. To avoid adding a new device ID for each
> generation and to make the driver forward and backward compatible,
> make use of the IDPF PCI programming interface to load the driver.
> 
> Write and read the VF_ARQBAL mailbox register to find if the current
> device is a PF or a VF.
> 
> PCI SIG allocated a new programming interface for the IDPF compliant
> ethernet network controller devices. It can be found at:
> https://members.pcisig.com/wg/PCI-SIG/document/20113
> with the document titled as 'PCI Code and ID Assignment Revision 1.16'
> or any latest revisions.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pavan Kumar Linga <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@...el.com>
> 
> ---
> v3:
> - reworked logic to avoid gotos

Thanks,

I see that Paul has provided some review, which I don't disagree with.
But overall this looks good to me. Feel free to add.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>

...