> -----Original Message----- > From: Sousa, Gustavo <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:27 PM > To: Bhadane, Dnyaneshwar <[email protected]>; Nikula, Jani > <[email protected]>; Nautiyal, Ankit K <[email protected]>; > intel- > [email protected] > Cc: Atwood, Matthew S <[email protected]>; Bhadane, > Dnyaneshwar <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/pcids: Split PTL pciids group to make wcl > subplatform > > Quoting Jani Nikula (2025-09-15 10:51:55-03:00) > >On Mon, 15 Sep 2025, Gustavo Sousa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Quoting Dnyaneshwar Bhadane (2025-09-11 17:55:40-03:00) > >>>To form the WCL platform as a subplatform of PTL in definition, WCL > >>>pci ids are splited into saparate group from PTL. > >>>So update the pciidlist struct to cover all the pci ids. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Dnyaneshwar Bhadane > <[email protected]> > >>>--- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c | 1 + > >>> include/drm/intel/pciids.h | 4 +++- > >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c > >>>b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c index 701ba9baa9d7..fc2ea9132804 > 100644 > >>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c > >>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c > >>>@@ -375,6 +375,7 @@ static const struct pci_device_id pciidlist[] = { > >>> INTEL_LNL_IDS(INTEL_VGA_DEVICE, &lnl_desc), > >>> INTEL_BMG_IDS(INTEL_VGA_DEVICE, &bmg_desc), > >>> INTEL_PTL_IDS(INTEL_VGA_DEVICE, &ptl_desc), > >>>+ INTEL_WCL_IDS(INTEL_VGA_DEVICE, &ptl_desc), > >>> { } > >>> }; > >>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, pciidlist); diff --git > >>>a/include/drm/intel/pciids.h b/include/drm/intel/pciids.h index > >>>da6301a6fcea..9d378c65be4b 100644 > >>>--- a/include/drm/intel/pciids.h > >>>+++ b/include/drm/intel/pciids.h > >>>@@ -877,7 +877,9 @@ > >>> MACRO__(0xB08F, ## __VA_ARGS__), \ > >>> MACRO__(0xB090, ## __VA_ARGS__), \ > >>> MACRO__(0xB0A0, ## __VA_ARGS__), \ > >>>- MACRO__(0xB0B0, ## __VA_ARGS__), \ > >>>+ MACRO__(0xB0B0, ## __VA_ARGS__) > >>>+ > >>>+#define INTEL_WCL_IDS(MACRO__, ...) \ > >>> MACRO__(0xFD80, ## __VA_ARGS__), \ > >>> MACRO__(0xFD81, ## __VA_ARGS__) > >> > >> This patch, at its current state, will break the display part, > >> because WCL will not be detected until the next patch. We should either: > >> > >> - bring the line "INTEL_WCL_IDS(INTEL_DISPLAY_DEVICE, &ptl_desc)" from > >> path #2 into this one. > > > >This. I've already replied to a newer version of this series to this > >effect [1][2]. > > > >[1] > >https://lore.kernel.org/r/70fc412b47d9972ad2d1b6eca13bbdd9da992552 > @inte > >l.com [2] > >https://lore.kernel.org/r/84fc10ec3b82b3436b521811589067ad0850eacd > @inte > >l.com > > > >> - squash this and patch #2 together. > > > >IMO cleaner with separate patches. > > > >> That said, since we are defining WCL as a subplatform, I think we > >> probably should make INTEL_WCL_IDS() be called from INTEL_PTL_IDS(). > > > >No. Please don't do that. > > > >There are various consumers for the PCI ID macros, and they should be > >kept independent. It's easier to deal with the platform/subplatform > >relationships at the consumer side, instead of forcing it in the PCI ID > >macros. > > > >Just consider having to promote WCL to an independent platform later. > >It would mean shuffling the macros again. > > Alright. Thanks!
Noted, Thank you. Dnyaneshwar > > -- > Gustavo Sousa > > > > >> Either that or make both separate platforms from the display point of > >> view. > >> > >> Also, I'm not sure how having a prelimiary patch affects backporting > >> fixes. So, I'm wondering if we should tag this patch somehow or if > >> something else should be made here to make the backporting easier. > > > >It's easy enough to ask for deps to be backported. > > > >BR, > >Jani. > > > > > >-- > >Jani Nikula, Intel
