On 7/9/20 3:14 AM, Wu, Hao wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:49PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: >>>> Subject: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000 >>>> >>>> Add PCIe Device ID for Intel FPGA PAC N3000. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c >>>> index 73b5153..824aecf 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c >>>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static void cci_pci_free_irq(struct pci_dev *pcidev) >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_5_X0xBCBD >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INT_6_X0xBCC0 >>>> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_DSC_1_X0x09C4 >>>> +#define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 >>> Should we drop _PF_ here? and also do you want _INTEL_ here? >> I think we could keep _PF_, also there is no need to support VF of pac >> n3000 in product now, but it does exist (ID: 0x0b31). I was wondering about the vf id, thanks! >> >> And add _INTEL_ is good to me. >> >> Then how about this one: >> #define PCIE_DEVICE_ID_PF_INTEL_PAC_N3000 0x0B30 > I am just considering the alignment with ids defined in include/linux/pci_ids.h > So drop _PF_ before _INTEL_ would be better? : ) To be consistent, all the id's are intel and all could drop pf. Tom > > Thanks > Hao >
