On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 04:20:33PM +0100, Michał Winiarski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 03:27:14PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 11:41:53AM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > +#define INTEL_VGA_VFIO_DEVICE(_id, _info) { \
> > > > + PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, (_id)), \
> > > > + .class = PCI_BASE_CLASS_DISPLAY << 16, .class_mask = 0xff << 16, \
> > > > + .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)(_info), \
> > > > + .override_only = PCI_ID_F_VFIO_DRIVER_OVERRIDE, \
> > >
> > > why do we need this and can't use PCI_DRIVER_OVERRIDE_DEVICE_VFIO()
> > > directly? Note that there are GPUs that wouldn't match the display class
> > > above.
> > >
> > > edb660ad79ff ("drm/intel/pciids: Add match on vendor/id only")
> > > 5e0de2dfbc1b ("drm/xe/cri: Add CRI platform definition")
> > >
> > > Lucas De Marchi
> > >
> >
> > I'll define it on xe-vfio-pci side and use
>
> but no matter where it's defined, why do you need it to match on the
> class? The vid/devid should be sufficient.
+1
Jason
I don't need to match on class.
With PCI_DRIVER_OVERRIDE_DEVICE_VFIO it just becomes:
#define INTEL_PCI_VFIO_DEVICE(_id) { \
PCI_DRIVER_OVERRIDE_DEVICE_VFIO(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, (_id)) \
}
static const struct pci_device_id xe_vfio_pci_table[] = {
INTEL_PTL_IDS(INTEL_PCI_VFIO_DEVICE),
INTEL_WCL_IDS(INTEL_PCI_VFIO_DEVICE),
INTEL_BMG_IDS(INTEL_PCI_VFIO_DEVICE),
{}
};
So, no matching on class, but I still do need a helper macro.
yeah, that lgtm
thanks
Lucas De Marchi
Thanks,
-Michał
