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