Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] cxl/mem: Introduce a driver for CXL-2.0-Type-3 endpoints

From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
Cc: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	"Chris Browy  <cbrowy@avery-design.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	 Dan Williams  <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>,
	"Jon Masters  <jcm@jonmasters.org>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	"John Groves (jgroves)" <jgroves@micron.com>,
	"Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@intel.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] cxl/mem: Introduce a driver for CXL-2.0-Type-3 endpoints
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:23:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210210172307.000020d5@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210210171220.67bncvfxqwg5wtu4@intel.com>

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:12:20 -0800
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> wrote:

...

> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int cxl_mem_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > +	int regloc;
> > > +
> > > +	regloc = cxl_mem_dvsec(pdev, PCI_DVSEC_ID_CXL_REGLOC_OFFSET);
> > > +	if (!regloc) {
> > > +		dev_err(dev, "register location dvsec not found\n");
> > > +		return -ENXIO;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static const struct pci_device_id cxl_mem_pci_tbl[] = {
> > > +	/* PCI class code for CXL.mem Type-3 Devices */
> > > +	{ PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID,
> > > +	  PCI_CLASS_MEMORY_CXL << 8 | CXL_MEMORY_PROGIF, 0xffffff, 0 },  
> > 
> > Having looked at this and thought 'thats a bit tricky to check'
> > I did a quick grep and seems the kernel is split between this approach
> > and people going with the mor readable c99 style initiators
> > 	.class = .. etc
> > 
> > Personally I'd find the c99 approach easier to read. 
> >   
> 
> Well, it's Dan's patch, but I did modify this last. I took a look around, and
> the best fit seems to me seems to be:
> -       { PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID,
> -         PCI_CLASS_MEMORY_CXL << 8 | CXL_MEMORY_PROGIF, 0xffffff, 0 },
> +       { PCI_DEVICE_CLASS((PCI_CLASS_MEMORY_CXL << 8 | CXL_MEMORY_PROGIF), ~0)},
> 
> That work for you?
> 

Yes that's definitely nicer.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org