RE: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: pci: add device id for Intel FPGA PAC N3000

[Wu, Hao]

> 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).
> 
> 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? : )

Thanks
Hao