Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI: Add CXL DVSEC control, lock, and range register definitions

[Alex Williamson <alwilliamson@nvidia.com>]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 08:00:15 +0000
<smadhavan@nvidia.com> wrote:

> From: Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com>
> 
> PCI: Add CXL DVSEC control, lock, and range register definitions
> 
> Add register offset and field definitions for CXL DVSEC registers needed
> by CXL state save/restore across resets:
> 
>   - CTRL2 (offset 0x10) and LOCK (offset 0x14) registers
>   - CONFIG_LOCK bit in the LOCK register
>   - RWL (read-write-when-locked) field masks for CTRL and range base
>     registers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> index ec1c54b5a310..6fdc20d7f5e6 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> @@ -1353,14 +1353,20 @@
>  #define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_HDM_COUNT			__GENMASK(5, 4)
>  #define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CTRL				0xC
>  #define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_ENABLE			_BITUL(2)
> +#define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CTRL_RWL			0x5FED
> +#define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CTRL2				0x10
> +#define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_LOCK				0x14
> +#define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_LOCK_CONFIG			_BITUL(0)
>  #define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_SIZE_HIGH(i)		(0x18 + (i * 0x10))
>  #define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_SIZE_LOW(i)		(0x1C + (i * 0x10))
>  #define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_INFO_VALID			_BITUL(0)
>  #define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_ACTIVE			_BITUL(1)
>  #define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_SIZE_LOW			__GENMASK(31, 28)
>  #define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_BASE_HIGH(i)		(0x20 + (i * 0x10))
> +#define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_BASE_HI_RWL		0xFFFFFFFF
>  #define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_BASE_LOW(i)		(0x24 + (i * 0x10))
>  #define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_BASE_LOW			__GENMASK(31, 28)
> +#define   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_BASE_LO_RWL		0xF0000000
>  
>  #define CXL_DVSEC_RANGE_MAX				2
>  

These RWL defines really seem to be more kernel policy than spec
definitions.  Do they really belong in the uAPI header?  Thanks,

Alex