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

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.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.