From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>

Resizing BAR to a larger size has to release upstream bridge windows in
order make the bridge windows larger as well (and to potential relocate
them into a larger free block within iomem space). Some GPUs have an
integrated PCI switch that has BAR0. The resource allocation assigns
space for that BAR0 as it does for any resource.

An extra resource on a bridge will pin its upstream bridge window in
place which prevents BAR resize for anything beneath that bridge.

Nothing in the pcieport driver provided by PCI core, which typically is
the driver bound to these bridges, requires that BAR0. Because of that,
releasing the extra BAR does not seem to have notable downsides but
comes with a clear upside.

Therefore, release BAR0 of such switches using a quirk and clear its
flags to prevent any new invocation of the resource assignment
algorithm from assigning the resource again.

Due to other siblings within the PCI hierarchy of all the devices
integrated into the GPU, some other devices may still have to be
manually removed before the resize is free of any bridge window pins.
Such siblings can be released through sysfs to unpin windows while
leaving access to GPU's sysfs entries required for initiating the
resize operation, whereas removing the topmost bridge this quirk
targets would result in removing the GPU device as well so no manual
workaround for this problem exists.

Reported-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/fl6tx5ztvttg7txmz2ps7oyd745wg3lwcp3h7esmvnyg26n44y@owo2ojiu2mov/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-xe/20250721173057.867829-1-uwu@icenowy.me/
Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v6.12+
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
---

Remarks from Ilpo: this feels quite hacky to me and I'm working towards a
better solution which is to consider Resizable BAR maximum size the
resource fitting algorithm. But then, I don't expect the better solution
to be something we want to push into stable due to extremely invasive
dependencies. So maybe consider this an interim/legacy solution to the
resizing problem and remove it once the algorithmic approach works (or
more precisely retain it only in the old kernel versions).
---
 drivers/pci/quirks.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
index d97335a401930..9b1c08de3aa89 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
@@ -6338,3 +6338,26 @@ static void pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9750, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
 DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9755, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
 #endif
+
+/*
+ * PCI switches integrated into Intel Arc GPUs have BAR0 that prevents
+ * resizing the BARs of the GPU device due to that bridge BAR0 pinning the
+ * bridge window it's under in place. Nothing in pcieport requires that
+ * BAR0.
+ *
+ * Release and disable BAR0 permanently by clearing its flags to prevent
+ * anything from assigning it again.
+ */
+static void pci_release_bar0(struct pci_dev *pdev)
+{
+	struct resource *res = pci_resource_n(pdev, 0);
+
+	if (!res->parent)
+		return;
+
+	pci_release_resource(pdev, 0);
+	res->flags = 0;
+}
+DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa0, pci_release_bar0);
+DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa1, pci_release_bar0);
+DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0xe2ff, pci_release_bar0);

-- 
2.50.1

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 01:58:56PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Resizing BAR to a larger size has to release upstream bridge windows in
> order make the bridge windows larger as well (and to potential relocate
> them into a larger free block within iomem space). Some GPUs have an
> integrated PCI switch that has BAR0. The resource allocation assigns
> space for that BAR0 as it does for any resource.
> 
> An extra resource on a bridge will pin its upstream bridge window in
> place which prevents BAR resize for anything beneath that bridge.
> 
> Nothing in the pcieport driver provided by PCI core, which typically is
> the driver bound to these bridges, requires that BAR0. Because of that,
> releasing the extra BAR does not seem to have notable downsides but
> comes with a clear upside.
> 
> Therefore, release BAR0 of such switches using a quirk and clear its
> flags to prevent any new invocation of the resource assignment
> algorithm from assigning the resource again.
> 
> Due to other siblings within the PCI hierarchy of all the devices
> integrated into the GPU, some other devices may still have to be
> manually removed before the resize is free of any bridge window pins.
> Such siblings can be released through sysfs to unpin windows while
> leaving access to GPU's sysfs entries required for initiating the
> resize operation, whereas removing the topmost bridge this quirk
> targets would result in removing the GPU device as well so no manual
> workaround for this problem exists.
> 
> Reported-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/fl6tx5ztvttg7txmz2ps7oyd745wg3lwcp3h7esmvnyg26n44y@owo2ojiu2mov/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-xe/20250721173057.867829-1-uwu@icenowy.me/
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v6.12+
> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> ---
> 
> Remarks from Ilpo: this feels quite hacky to me and I'm working towards a
> better solution which is to consider Resizable BAR maximum size the
> resource fitting algorithm. But then, I don't expect the better solution
> to be something we want to push into stable due to extremely invasive
> dependencies. So maybe consider this an interim/legacy solution to the
> resizing problem and remove it once the algorithmic approach works (or
> more precisely retain it only in the old kernel versions).
> ---
>  drivers/pci/quirks.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> index d97335a401930..9b1c08de3aa89 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> @@ -6338,3 +6338,26 @@ static void pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9750, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
>  DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9755, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
>  #endif
> +
> +/*
> + * PCI switches integrated into Intel Arc GPUs have BAR0 that prevents
> + * resizing the BARs of the GPU device due to that bridge BAR0 pinning the
> + * bridge window it's under in place. Nothing in pcieport requires that
> + * BAR0.
> + *
> + * Release and disable BAR0 permanently by clearing its flags to prevent
> + * anything from assigning it again.

Does "disabling BAR0" actually work?  This quirk keeps the PCI core
from assigning resources to the BAR, but I don't think we have a way
to actually disable an individual BAR, do we?

I think the only control is PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY, and the bridge must
have PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY enabled so memory accesses to downstream
devices work.

No matter what we do to the struct resource, the hardware BAR still
contains some address, and the bridge will decode any accesses that
match the address in the BAR.

Maybe we could effectively disable the BAR by setting it to some
impossible address, i.e., something outside both the upstream and
downstream bridge windows so memory accesses could never be routed to
it?

> + */
> +static void pci_release_bar0(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct resource *res = pci_resource_n(pdev, 0);
> +
> +	if (!res->parent)
> +		return;
> +
> +	pci_release_resource(pdev, 0);
> +	res->flags = 0;
> +}
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa0, pci_release_bar0);
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa1, pci_release_bar0);
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0xe2ff, pci_release_bar0);
> 
> -- 
> 2.50.1
> 

On Fri, 24 Oct 2025, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 01:58:56PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Resizing BAR to a larger size has to release upstream bridge windows in
> > order make the bridge windows larger as well (and to potential relocate
> > them into a larger free block within iomem space). Some GPUs have an
> > integrated PCI switch that has BAR0. The resource allocation assigns
> > space for that BAR0 as it does for any resource.
> > 
> > An extra resource on a bridge will pin its upstream bridge window in
> > place which prevents BAR resize for anything beneath that bridge.
> > 
> > Nothing in the pcieport driver provided by PCI core, which typically is
> > the driver bound to these bridges, requires that BAR0. Because of that,
> > releasing the extra BAR does not seem to have notable downsides but
> > comes with a clear upside.
> > 
> > Therefore, release BAR0 of such switches using a quirk and clear its
> > flags to prevent any new invocation of the resource assignment
> > algorithm from assigning the resource again.
> > 
> > Due to other siblings within the PCI hierarchy of all the devices
> > integrated into the GPU, some other devices may still have to be
> > manually removed before the resize is free of any bridge window pins.
> > Such siblings can be released through sysfs to unpin windows while
> > leaving access to GPU's sysfs entries required for initiating the
> > resize operation, whereas removing the topmost bridge this quirk
> > targets would result in removing the GPU device as well so no manual
> > workaround for this problem exists.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/fl6tx5ztvttg7txmz2ps7oyd745wg3lwcp3h7esmvnyg26n44y@owo2ojiu2mov/
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-xe/20250721173057.867829-1-uwu@icenowy.me/
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v6.12+
> > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Remarks from Ilpo: this feels quite hacky to me and I'm working towards a
> > better solution which is to consider Resizable BAR maximum size the
> > resource fitting algorithm. But then, I don't expect the better solution
> > to be something we want to push into stable due to extremely invasive
> > dependencies. So maybe consider this an interim/legacy solution to the
> > resizing problem and remove it once the algorithmic approach works (or
> > more precisely retain it only in the old kernel versions).
> > ---
> >  drivers/pci/quirks.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> > index d97335a401930..9b1c08de3aa89 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> > @@ -6338,3 +6338,26 @@ static void pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >  DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9750, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
> >  DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9755, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
> >  #endif
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * PCI switches integrated into Intel Arc GPUs have BAR0 that prevents
> > + * resizing the BARs of the GPU device due to that bridge BAR0 pinning the
> > + * bridge window it's under in place. Nothing in pcieport requires that
> > + * BAR0.
> > + *
> > + * Release and disable BAR0 permanently by clearing its flags to prevent
> > + * anything from assigning it again.
> 
> Does "disabling BAR0" actually work?  This quirk keeps the PCI core
> from assigning resources to the BAR, but I don't think we have a way
> to actually disable an individual BAR, do we?

No, we don't and that was just sloppy wording from me. The same problem
applies to any other non-assigned BAR resource, they too are there with
a dangling address that could conflict.

> I think the only control is PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY, and the bridge must
> have PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY enabled so memory accesses to downstream
> devices work.
> 
> No matter what we do to the struct resource, the hardware BAR still
> contains some address, and the bridge will decode any accesses that
> match the address in the BAR.
> 
> Maybe we could effectively disable the BAR by setting it to some
> impossible address, i.e., something outside both the upstream and
> downstream bridge windows so memory accesses could never be routed to
> it?

I'm not entire sure how one should acquire address outside of the valid 
address ranges? Is the resource-to-bus mapping even valid outside a 
window?

Perhaps find either min(start address) or max(end address) over all
windows as those boundary addresses should be still mappable and place 
the BAR right below or above either of those by subtracting the resource 
size or adding +1). How does that approach sound?

(There could be cases where a simple approach like that fails when both 
ends of the range are in use but then I wouldn't want to over-engineer the 
approach at this point unless we know there are such problematic cases
in practice.)

It would be nice to do it eventually for any non-assigned BAR but it 
requires preserving those res->flags (for non-window resources too) in 
order to know which of them are even even usable as BARs.

-- 
 i.

> > + */
> > +static void pci_release_bar0(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	struct resource *res = pci_resource_n(pdev, 0);
> > +
> > +	if (!res->parent)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	pci_release_resource(pdev, 0);
> > +	res->flags = 0;
> > +}
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa0, pci_release_bar0);
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa1, pci_release_bar0);
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0xe2ff, pci_release_bar0);
> > 
> > -- 
> > 2.50.1
> > 
> 

On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 05:44:01PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 01:58:56PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Resizing BAR to a larger size has to release upstream bridge windows in
>> order make the bridge windows larger as well (and to potential relocate
>> them into a larger free block within iomem space). Some GPUs have an
>> integrated PCI switch that has BAR0. The resource allocation assigns
>> space for that BAR0 as it does for any resource.
>>
>> An extra resource on a bridge will pin its upstream bridge window in
>> place which prevents BAR resize for anything beneath that bridge.
>>
>> Nothing in the pcieport driver provided by PCI core, which typically is
>> the driver bound to these bridges, requires that BAR0. Because of that,
>> releasing the extra BAR does not seem to have notable downsides but
>> comes with a clear upside.
>>
>> Therefore, release BAR0 of such switches using a quirk and clear its
>> flags to prevent any new invocation of the resource assignment
>> algorithm from assigning the resource again.
>>
>> Due to other siblings within the PCI hierarchy of all the devices
>> integrated into the GPU, some other devices may still have to be
>> manually removed before the resize is free of any bridge window pins.
>> Such siblings can be released through sysfs to unpin windows while
>> leaving access to GPU's sysfs entries required for initiating the
>> resize operation, whereas removing the topmost bridge this quirk
>> targets would result in removing the GPU device as well so no manual
>> workaround for this problem exists.
>>
>> Reported-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/fl6tx5ztvttg7txmz2ps7oyd745wg3lwcp3h7esmvnyg26n44y@owo2ojiu2mov/
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-xe/20250721173057.867829-1-uwu@icenowy.me/
>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v6.12+
>> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Remarks from Ilpo: this feels quite hacky to me and I'm working towards a
>> better solution which is to consider Resizable BAR maximum size the
>> resource fitting algorithm. But then, I don't expect the better solution
>> to be something we want to push into stable due to extremely invasive
>> dependencies. So maybe consider this an interim/legacy solution to the
>> resizing problem and remove it once the algorithmic approach works (or
>> more precisely retain it only in the old kernel versions).
>> ---
>>  drivers/pci/quirks.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
>> index d97335a401930..9b1c08de3aa89 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
>> @@ -6338,3 +6338,26 @@ static void pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>  DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9750, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
>>  DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9755, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
>>  #endif
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * PCI switches integrated into Intel Arc GPUs have BAR0 that prevents
>> + * resizing the BARs of the GPU device due to that bridge BAR0 pinning the
>> + * bridge window it's under in place. Nothing in pcieport requires that
>> + * BAR0.
>> + *
>> + * Release and disable BAR0 permanently by clearing its flags to prevent
>> + * anything from assigning it again.
>
>Does "disabling BAR0" actually work?  This quirk keeps the PCI core
>from assigning resources to the BAR, but I don't think we have a way
>to actually disable an individual BAR, do we?
>
>I think the only control is PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY, and the bridge must
>have PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY enabled so memory accesses to downstream
>devices work.
>
>No matter what we do to the struct resource, the hardware BAR still
>contains some address, and the bridge will decode any accesses that
>match the address in the BAR.

there's no real use for that BAR, so I don't think it matters if the hw
will still decode accesses to it - in this case I don't think it's
really important to really disable it. As long as pci can manage the
resources and not block the move of endpoint's BARs, it should work.

These 2 patches definitely fixed the rebar for me in a system with
Battle Mage GPU. I don't have access to it right now, but I can dig more
info about it if it's needed.

>
>Maybe we could effectively disable the BAR by setting it to some
>impossible address, i.e., something outside both the upstream and
>downstream bridge windows so memory accesses could never be routed to
>it?

yeah, I guess that would be possible, but given the above, do you see
any advantage on that?

thanks
Lucas De Marchi

>
>> + */
>> +static void pci_release_bar0(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct resource *res = pci_resource_n(pdev, 0);
>> +
>> +	if (!res->parent)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	pci_release_resource(pdev, 0);
>> +	res->flags = 0;
>> +}
>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa0, pci_release_bar0);
>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa1, pci_release_bar0);
>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0xe2ff, pci_release_bar0);
>>
>> --
>> 2.50.1
>>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 01:58:56PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
>
>Resizing BAR to a larger size has to release upstream bridge windows in
>order make the bridge windows larger as well (and to potential relocate
>them into a larger free block within iomem space). Some GPUs have an
>integrated PCI switch that has BAR0. The resource allocation assigns
>space for that BAR0 as it does for any resource.
>
>An extra resource on a bridge will pin its upstream bridge window in
>place which prevents BAR resize for anything beneath that bridge.
>
>Nothing in the pcieport driver provided by PCI core, which typically is
>the driver bound to these bridges, requires that BAR0. Because of that,
>releasing the extra BAR does not seem to have notable downsides but
>comes with a clear upside.
>
>Therefore, release BAR0 of such switches using a quirk and clear its
>flags to prevent any new invocation of the resource assignment
>algorithm from assigning the resource again.
>
>Due to other siblings within the PCI hierarchy of all the devices
>integrated into the GPU, some other devices may still have to be
>manually removed before the resize is free of any bridge window pins.
>Such siblings can be released through sysfs to unpin windows while
>leaving access to GPU's sysfs entries required for initiating the
>resize operation, whereas removing the topmost bridge this quirk
>targets would result in removing the GPU device as well so no manual
>workaround for this problem exists.
>
>Reported-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/fl6tx5ztvttg7txmz2ps7oyd745wg3lwcp3h7esmvnyg26n44y@owo2ojiu2mov/
>Link: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-xe/20250721173057.867829-1-uwu@icenowy.me/
>Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
>Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v6.12+
>Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>---
>
>Remarks from Ilpo: this feels quite hacky to me and I'm working towards a
>better solution which is to consider Resizable BAR maximum size the
>resource fitting algorithm. But then, I don't expect the better solution
>to be something we want to push into stable due to extremely invasive
>dependencies. So maybe consider this an interim/legacy solution to the
>resizing problem and remove it once the algorithmic approach works (or
>more precisely retain it only in the old kernel versions).

Bjorn, would that be acceptable? If so, please let me know if I can take
it through the drm tree together with the second patch to have this BAR
resize fixed for BMG.

thanks
Lucas De Marchi


>---
> drivers/pci/quirks.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
>index d97335a401930..9b1c08de3aa89 100644
>--- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
>+++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
>@@ -6338,3 +6338,26 @@ static void pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9750, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
> DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_GLI, 0x9755, pci_mask_replay_timer_timeout);
> #endif
>+
>+/*
>+ * PCI switches integrated into Intel Arc GPUs have BAR0 that prevents
>+ * resizing the BARs of the GPU device due to that bridge BAR0 pinning the
>+ * bridge window it's under in place. Nothing in pcieport requires that
>+ * BAR0.
>+ *
>+ * Release and disable BAR0 permanently by clearing its flags to prevent
>+ * anything from assigning it again.
>+ */
>+static void pci_release_bar0(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>+{
>+	struct resource *res = pci_resource_n(pdev, 0);
>+
>+	if (!res->parent)
>+		return;
>+
>+	pci_release_resource(pdev, 0);
>+	res->flags = 0;
>+}
>+DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa0, pci_release_bar0);
>+DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x4fa1, pci_release_bar0);
>+DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0xe2ff, pci_release_bar0);
>
>-- 
>2.50.1
>