Re: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000

[Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>]

On 7/9/20 3:14 AM, Wu, Hao wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:49PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote:
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000
>>>>
>>>> Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c
>>>> index 73b5153..824aecf 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c
>>>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev)
>>>>  #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X0xBCBD
>>>>  #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X0xBCC0
>>>>  #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X0x09C4
>>>> +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30
>>> Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here?
>> I think we could keep _PF_, also there is no need to support VF of pac
>> n3000 in product now, but it does exist (ID: 0x0b31).

I was wondering about the vf id, thanks!

>>
>> And add _INTEL_ is good to me.
>>
>> Then how about this one:
>>   #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INTEL_PAC_N3000	0x0B30
> I am just considering the alignment with ids defined in include/linux/pci_ids.h
> So drop _PF_ before _INTEL_ would be better? : )

To be consistent, all the id's are intel and all could drop pf.

Tom

>
> Thanks
> Hao
>