Quoting Jani Nikula (2025-09-15 10:51:55-03:00)
>On Mon, 15 Sep 2025, Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.so...@intel.com> 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 <dnyaneshwar.bhad...@intel.com>
>>>---
>>> 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 I've already replied to a newer version of this series to this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/70fc412b47d9972ad2d1b6eca13bbdd9da992...@intel.com
>[2]
>https://lore.kernel.org/r/84fc10ec3b82b3436b521811589067ad0850e...@intel.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!
--
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
