On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:04:40PM +0800, Matt Hsiao wrote:
> Instead of having explicit if statments excluding devices,
> use a pci_device_id table of devices to blacklist.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Hsiao <matt.hs...@hpe.com>
> ---
> drivers/misc/hpilo.c | 13 +++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/hpilo.c b/drivers/misc/hpilo.c
> index 01c407a..0224e50 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/hpilo.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/hpilo.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,11 @@
> static unsigned int ilo_major;
> static unsigned int max_ccb = 16;
> static char ilo_hwdev[MAX_ILO_DEV];
> +static const struct pci_device_id ilo_blacklist[] = {
> + /* auxiliary iLO */
> + {PCI_DEVICE_SUB(PCI_VENDOR_ID_HP, 0x3307, PCI_VENDOR_ID_HP, 0x1979)},
> + {}
> +};
>
> static inline int get_entry_id(int entry)
> {
> @@ -763,10 +768,10 @@ static int ilo_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> int devnum, minor, start, error = 0;
> struct ilo_hwinfo *ilo_hw;
>
> - /* Ignore auxiliary iLO device */
> - if (pdev->subsystem_vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_HP &&
> - pdev->subsystem_device == 0x1979)
> - return 0;
> + if (pci_match_id(ilo_blacklist, pdev)) {
> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "Not supported on this device\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
Why not just merge this into the previous patch?
And why do some devices need to be blacklisted, shouldn't there only be
a whitelist in the first place? Do you need to tighten up your original
device ids?
thanks,
greg k-h
