Hi Greg & Alex
why is that patch picked up for stable? Or are we backporting IP based
discovery?
If yes, is that wise? IIRC we had quite a number of typos etc.. in the
initial patches.
Regards,
Christian.
Am 11.07.22 um 11:06 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
From: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit eb4fd29afd4aa1c98d882800ceeee7d1f5262803 ]
Bind to all 0x1002 GPU devices.
For now we explicitly return -ENODEV for generic bindings.
Remove this check once IP discovery based checking is in place.
v2: rebase (Alex)
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
index f65b4b233ffb..c294081022bd 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
@@ -1952,6 +1952,16 @@ static const struct pci_device_id pciidlist[] = {
{0x1002, 0x7424, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, CHIP_BEIGE_GOBY},
{0x1002, 0x743F, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, CHIP_BEIGE_GOBY},
+ { PCI_DEVICE(0x1002, PCI_ANY_ID),
+ .class = PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_VGA << 8,
+ .class_mask = 0xffffff,
+ .driver_data = 0 },
+
+ { PCI_DEVICE(0x1002, PCI_ANY_ID),
+ .class = PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_OTHER << 8,
+ .class_mask = 0xffffff,
+ .driver_data = 0 },
+
{0, 0, 0}
};
@@ -1999,6 +2009,11 @@ static int amdgpu_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
return -ENODEV;
}
+ if (flags == 0) {
+ DRM_INFO("Unsupported asic. Remove me when IP discovery init is in place.\n");
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
+
if (amdgpu_virtual_display ||
amdgpu_device_asic_has_dc_support(flags & AMD_ASIC_MASK))
supports_atomic = true;
