Hi Greg & Alex
why is that patch picked up for stable? Or are we backporting IP based discovery?
If yes, is that wise? IIRC we had quite a number of typos etc.. in the initial patches.
Regards, Christian.
Am 11.07.22 um 11:06 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
From: Alex Deucher alexander.deucher@amd.com
[ Upstream commit eb4fd29afd4aa1c98d882800ceeee7d1f5262803 ]
Bind to all 0x1002 GPU devices.
For now we explicitly return -ENODEV for generic bindings. Remove this check once IP discovery based checking is in place.
v2: rebase (Alex)
Reviewed-by: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher alexander.deucher@amd.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c index f65b4b233ffb..c294081022bd 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c @@ -1952,6 +1952,16 @@ static const struct pci_device_id pciidlist[] = { {0x1002, 0x7424, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, CHIP_BEIGE_GOBY}, {0x1002, 0x743F, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, CHIP_BEIGE_GOBY},
- { PCI_DEVICE(0x1002, PCI_ANY_ID),
.class = PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_VGA << 8,.class_mask = 0xffffff,.driver_data = 0 },- { PCI_DEVICE(0x1002, PCI_ANY_ID),
.class = PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_OTHER << 8,.class_mask = 0xffffff,.driver_data = 0 },- {0, 0, 0} };
@@ -1999,6 +2009,11 @@ static int amdgpu_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, return -ENODEV; }
- if (flags == 0) {
DRM_INFO("Unsupported asic. Remove me when IP discovery init is in place.\n");return -ENODEV;- }
- if (amdgpu_virtual_display || amdgpu_device_asic_has_dc_support(flags & AMD_ASIC_MASK)) supports_atomic = true;