Re: [PATCH v1] x86/amd_nb: Add new PCI IDs for AMD family 0x1a model 60h

[Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com>]

On 7/18/2024 21:13, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 07:32:58PM +0530, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>> Add the new PCI Device IDs to the root IDs and misc ids list to support
>> new generation of AMD 1Ah family 60h Models of processors.
> 
> Please be consistent with formatting.
> 
> "Device" -> "device"
> 
> "misc ids" -> "misc IDs" 
> 
> "Models" -> "models"
> 
> Also, you have "0x1A"  in the $SUBJECT, but you have "1Ah" in the commit
> message. I suggest staying with "1Ah" as that is the format used in AMD
> documentation.
> 
> And "v1" is not necessary in the "[PATCH]" prefix.
> 
> Furthermore, if you CC the "x86" alias, then you don't need to CC the
> individual x86 maintainers.

I used get_maintainer.pl to send it. I can remove individual names and
send it only to the x86 maintainers.

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com>
>> ---
>> (As the amd_nb functions are used by PMC and PMF drivers, without these IDs
>> being present AMD PMF/PMC probe shall fail.)
> 
> This comment can go in the commit message. Otherwise, it'll be lost from
> the git history.
> 
> The comment is helpful in that it gives a reason *why* these new IDs are
> needed.
> 

My previous commit 0e640f0a47d8 ("x86/amd_nb: Add new PCI IDs for AMD
family 0x1a") included this note in the commit message, but Boris had
to trim it. Therefore, I excluded it this time.

Should I include or exclude this note?

I can do a re-spin based on your further remarks.

Thanks,
Shyam

>>
>>  arch/x86/kernel/amd_nb.c | 3 +++
>>  include/linux/pci_ids.h  | 1 +
>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_nb.c b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_nb.c
>> index 059e5c16af05..61eadde08511 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_nb.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_nb.c
>> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_19H_M70H_ROOT		0x14e8
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M00H_ROOT		0x153a
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M20H_ROOT		0x1507
>> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M60H_ROOT		0x1122
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_MI200_ROOT		0x14bb
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_MI300_ROOT		0x14f8
>>  
>> @@ -63,6 +64,7 @@ static const struct pci_device_id amd_root_ids[] = {
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_19H_M70H_ROOT) },
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M00H_ROOT) },
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M20H_ROOT) },
>> +	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M60H_ROOT) },
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_MI200_ROOT) },
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_MI300_ROOT) },
>>  	{}
>> @@ -95,6 +97,7 @@ static const struct pci_device_id amd_nb_misc_ids[] = {
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_19H_M78H_DF_F3) },
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M00H_DF_F3) },
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M20H_DF_F3) },
>> +	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M60H_DF_F3) },
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M70H_DF_F3) },
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_MI200_DF_F3) },
>>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_MI300_DF_F3) },
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci_ids.h b/include/linux/pci_ids.h
>> index 76a8f2d6bd64..bbe8f3dfa813 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pci_ids.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pci_ids.h
>> @@ -580,6 +580,7 @@
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_19H_M78H_DF_F3 0x12fb
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M00H_DF_F3 0x12c3
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M20H_DF_F3 0x16fb
>> +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M60H_DF_F3 0x124b
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_1AH_M70H_DF_F3 0x12bb
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_MI200_DF_F3	0x14d3
>>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_MI300_DF_F3	0x152b
>> -- 
> 
> I can confirm that the IDs are correct.
> 
> Besides the formatting issues, this looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>>
> Thanks,
> Yazen