@@ -20,8 +20,10 @@
#define PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_HP (1 << PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_HP_SHIFT)
#define PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_DPC_SHIFT 3 /* Downstream Port Containment */
#define PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_DPC (1 << PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_DPC_SHIFT)
+#define PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_PMU_SHIFT 4 /* Vendor defined Perf Units */
+#define PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_PMU (1 << PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_PMU_SHIFT)
-#define PCIE_PORT_DEVICE_MAXSERVICES 4
+#define PCIE_PORT_DEVICE_MAXSERVICES 5
#ifdef CONFIG_PCIEAER
int pcie_aer_init(void);
@@ -250,6 +250,8 @@ static int get_port_device_capability(struct pci_dev *dev)
pci_aer_available() && services & PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_AER)
services |= PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_DPC;
+ services |= PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_PMU;
+
return services;
}
When originally introduced (and still in the docs) it was possible to have drivers matched by HID, now it isn't so this is a bit ugly in that it will call any registered PMU driver. How would people prefer this was done? * Drop the association with the port and handle as uncore. Whilst the driver that follows is not in config space, it is likely that future PMU units will use DVSEC (in PCI config space) and so this option won't really be available. * Put a full subsystem style driver matching layer in here. Moderately simple to do do and well understood. Right now this code is a hack to get the conversation going! It would be nice if there was a standard PCIe PMU specification but whilst there isn't, everyone will end up doing it differently... Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> --- drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv.h | 4 +++- drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)