Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ALSA: hda: Skip i915 initialization on CNL/LKF-based platforms

[Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@intel.com>]

On 2024-02-26 11:40 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@intel.com> wrote:
>> Commit 78f613ba1efb ("drm/i915: finish removal of CNL") and its friends
>> removed support for i915 for all CNL-based platforms. HDAudio library,
>> however, still treats such platforms as valid candidates for i915
>> binding. Update query mechanism to reflect changes made in drm tree.
>>
>> At the same time, i915 support for LKF-based platforms has not been
>> provided so remove them from valid binding candidates.
>>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210728215946.1573015-1-lucas.demarchi@intel.com/
>> Signed-off-by: Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   sound/hda/hdac_i915.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c b/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c
>> index 365c36fdf205..afee87bd0f2e 100644
>> --- a/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c
>> +++ b/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c
>> @@ -127,15 +127,41 @@ static int i915_component_master_match(struct device *dev, int subcomponent,
>>   /* check whether Intel graphics is present and reachable */
>>   static int i915_gfx_present(struct pci_dev *hdac_pci)
>>   {
>> +	/* List of known platforms with no i915 support. */
>> +	static struct pci_device_id denylist[] = {
> 
> This should be const to place it in rodata, it doesn't need to be
> mutable.
> 
>> +		/* CNL */
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a40), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a41), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a42), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a44), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a49), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a4a), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a4c), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a50), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a51), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a52), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a54), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a59), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a5a), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x5a5c), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		/* LKF */
>> +		{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x9840), 0x030000, 0xff0000 },
>> +		{ 0 }
> 
> Nitpick, prefer {} over { 0 }.

Ack for both suggestions. Thank you.

Kind regards,
Czarek