From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bmailout2.hostsharing.net (bmailout2.hostsharing.net [83.223.78.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A013222303; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 12:36:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (verified OK)) by bmailout2.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 715ED2800B4AC; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:36:21 +0100 (CET) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id 526D51093B; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:36:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:36:21 +0100 From: Lukas Wunner To: Shinichiro Kawasaki Cc: Klara Modin , "andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com" , "hdegoede@redhat.com" , "ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com" , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] platform/x86: p2sb: Allow p2sb_bar() calls during PCI device probe Message-ID: <20240104123621.GA4876@wunner.de> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 08:41:28AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote: > My mere idea was to just blacklist Intel CPUs with family != 6. The P2SB device has Vendor ID 0x8086, Device ID 0xc5c5, so just match for that? The IDE controller in question has [8086:244b]. Class codes also differ, so that would be another suitable method for differentiation. Thanks, Lukas