Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:41:48 +0200 | From | Stefano Garzarella <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] vDPA/ifcvf: enable Intel C5000X-PL virtio-block for vDPA |
| |
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:53:35PM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote: >This commit enabled Intel FPGA SmartNIC C5000X-PL virtio-block >for vDPA. > >Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com> >--- > drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h | 8 +++++++- > drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c | 10 +++++++++- > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h >index 1c04cd256fa7..0111bfdeb342 100644 >--- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h >+++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h >@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ > #include <linux/pci_regs.h> > #include <linux/vdpa.h> > #include <uapi/linux/virtio_net.h> >+#include <uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h> > #include <uapi/linux/virtio_config.h> > #include <uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h> > >@@ -28,7 +29,12 @@ > #define C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID 0x8086 > #define C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID 0x0001 > >-#define IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES \ >+#define C5000X_PL_BLK_VENDOR_ID 0x1AF4 >+#define C5000X_PL_BLK_DEVICE_ID 0x1001 >+#define C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID 0x8086 >+#define C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID 0x0002 >+ >+#define IFCVF_NET_SUPPORTED_FEATURES \ > ((1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC) | \ > (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT) | \ > (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1) | \ >diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c >index 469a9b5737b7..cea1313b1a3f 100644 >--- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c >+++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c >@@ -171,7 +171,11 @@ static u64 ifcvf_vdpa_get_features(struct vdpa_device *vdpa_dev) > struct ifcvf_hw *vf = vdpa_to_vf(vdpa_dev); > u64 features; > >- features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) & IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES; >+ if (vf->dev_type == VIRTIO_ID_NET) >+ features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) & IFCVF_NET_SUPPORTED_FEATURES; >+ >+ if (vf->dev_type == VIRTIO_ID_BLOCK) >+ features = ifcvf_get_features(vf); >
Should we put a warning here too otherwise feature could be seen unassigned?
Thanks, Stefano
> return features; > } >@@ -517,6 +521,10 @@ static struct pci_device_id ifcvf_pci_ids[] = { > C5000X_PL_DEVICE_ID, > C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID, > C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID) }, >+ { PCI_DEVICE_SUB(C5000X_PL_BLK_VENDOR_ID, >+ C5000X_PL_BLK_DEVICE_ID, >+ C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID, >+ C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID) }, > > { 0 }, > }; >-- >2.27.0 >
| |