On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:49:49 -0700 Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:42:33PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:17:55AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > FIXME: This is based on some HW being used for a demo. We should > > > probably wait until we have confirmation on the IDs before upstreaming > > > this patch. > > > > I don't mind too much if we need to fixup the device after the fact, but > > checking whether this is the shipping configuration shouldn't hurt. > > > > More important is probably whether there's any quanta platform with the > > same sdev/svendor ids without a fused pch. In that case I guess we need to > > check for something else (maybe some fuse flags in the pch?). > > I highly doubt it, but I don't know how to prove it. From what I gather > on the internet and parsing through the limited uses in the kernel > today, the subvendor/subdevice is unique. I believe this is just an early board; for production I've requested a unique PCI ID. We'll see what happens... If nothing else, the existing subvendor/subdev is good for testing the new code. We can drop it if/when we get a better check. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
