On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 08:33:55AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 11:12:05AM +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 01:54:42AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:12:01AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > There is absolutely nothing vendor-specific here, it is a device > > > > > variant > > > > > driver. In fact in Linux basically nothing is ever vendor specific, > > > > > because vendor is not a concept that does matter in any practical > > > > > sense > > > > > except for tiny details like the vendor ID as one of the IDs to match > > > > > on in device probing. > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea why people keep trying to inject this term again and > > > > > again. > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > The reasoning was that in this case we're matching vendor ID + class > > > > combination to match all Intel GPUs, and not just selected device ID, > > > > but I get your point. > > > > > > Which sounds like a really bad idea. Is this going to work on i810 > > > devices? Or the odd parts povervr based parts? > > > > It's using .override_only = PCI_ID_F_VFIO_DRIVER_OVERRIDE, so it only > > matters if the user was already planning to override the regular driver > > with VFIO one (using driver_override sysfs). > > So if it worked on i810 or other odd parts using regular vfio-pci, it > > would work with xe-vfio-pci, as both are using the same underlying > > functions provided by vfio-pci-core. > > I also would rather see you list the actual working PCI IDs :| > > Claiming all class devices for a vendor_id is something only DRM > does..
We already have all of the device IDs in include/drm/intel/pciids.h So it's just a matter of adding a helper that sets an override and including it and using a subset of ID. I'll do that instead of matching on class. Thanks, -Michał > > Jason
