On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 02:09:57PM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 2022-11-01 12:46:19, "Greg KH" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 10:10:52AM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote: > >> n MHI driver, there are some companies' product still do not have their > >> own PCI vendor macro. So we add it here to make the code neat. Ref ID > >> could be found in link https://pcisig.com/membership/member-companies. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Slark Xiao <slark_xiao@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> v3: Separate different vendors into different patch. > >> > >> v2: Update vendor ID to the right location sorted by numeric value. > >> --- > >> drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c | 6 +++--- > >> include/linux/pci_ids.h | 2 ++ > >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c > >> index caa4ce28cf9e..81ae9c49ce2a 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c > >> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c > >> @@ -555,11 +555,11 @@ static const struct pci_device_id mhi_pci_id_table[] = { > >> .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_telit_fn990_info }, > >> { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0308), > >> .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_qcom_sdx65_info }, > >> - { PCI_DEVICE(0x1eac, 0x1001), /* EM120R-GL (sdx24) */ > >> + { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QUECTEL, 0x1001), /* EM120R-GL (sdx24) */ > >> .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_quectel_em1xx_info }, > >> - { PCI_DEVICE(0x1eac, 0x1002), /* EM160R-GL (sdx24) */ > >> + { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QUECTEL, 0x1002), /* EM160R-GL (sdx24) */ > >> .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_quectel_em1xx_info }, > >> - { PCI_DEVICE(0x1eac, 0x2001), /* EM120R-GL for FCCL (sdx24) */ > >> + { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QUECTEL, 0x2001), /* EM120R-GL for FCCL (sdx24) */ > >> .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_quectel_em1xx_info }, > >> /* T99W175 (sdx55), Both for eSIM and Non-eSIM */ > >> { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_FOXCONN, 0xe0ab), > >> diff --git a/include/linux/pci_ids.h b/include/linux/pci_ids.h > >> index b362d90eb9b0..3c91461bcfe4 100644 > >> --- a/include/linux/pci_ids.h > >> +++ b/include/linux/pci_ids.h > >> @@ -2585,6 +2585,8 @@ > >> #define PCI_VENDOR_ID_TEKRAM 0x1de1 > >> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_TEKRAM_DC290 0xdc29 > >> > >> +#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_QUECTEL 0x1eac > > > >Why did you ignore the comment at the top of this file saying that new > >entries are not needed to be added, especially for just one user? > > > >thanks, > > > >greg k-h > Hi Greg, > Actually I didn't see this notice before committing this patch. I even discussed > it with the maintainer for several times and nobody show me this rule. > I have a concern, some IOT module vendors, like QUECTEL, CINTERION(THALES), > SIERRA,ROLLING and so on, they only produce IOT modules without other > hardware with PCIe interface, and they applied for their own VID. But they > can't get a their own VENDOR MARCO? This seems unreasonable. > This change should be harmless and make the code neat. > This is my opinion. It causes a _LOT_ of churn and merge issues when everyone is adding new entries to a single file. Which is why, 15+ years ago, we made the decision that if a vendor or device id is only needed in one file, then it should not be added to the pci_ids.h file. No need to change that now, please just put the vendor id in the single driver that it is needed in. thanks, greg k-h
